Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology/Style guide for foreign blazons

Style guide for foreign blazons

In working with foreign language sources (particularly in Swedish heraldry) I have encountered many situations where there is an "official description" (in the vernacular) in the original source. When providing a detailed description of a coat of arms from a foreign-language source, should we provide our description: A) in the official foreign language wording provided in the original source, B) translated into layman's terms in English, C) translated into "Frenglish" Blazon, or D) some combination (such as the foreign-language original in italics followed by English - or Blazon - in parentheses)? I think we should come up with an approach that works for all foreign-language sourced situations and apply it Project-wide as a style guide. Any thoughts, anyone? Wilhelm_meis (talk) 11:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Good that you brought up this subject, Wilhelm meis. Here's what I think: English-style blazon is good for writing about English heraldry, but not necessarily for other countries which may have quite different heraldic traditions. And legal texts in many countries may not use traditional blazons anyway. So I'd say, use a straightforward layman's translation when quoting heraldic law in an article, with the original text and source in a footnote. — Kpalion^(talk) 14:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I was going to suggest the foreign language law in the article with explanitary prose (as if the foreign language text were blazon), but then I realised we've had a lot of text that would be untranslatable to most readers. So I guess a layman's text, more in prose form rather than a translated definition, would be best. If I'm not being clear enough on the latter point, I'll elaborate. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 20:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

My instinct is to translate the original as literally as possible; followed, if that's unclear, by a Norman-English blazon, but not a layman's blazon ("a diagonal stripe with square notches in its upper edge").

I don't know enough Dutch/German/Swedish to be sure that literal translation won't give monstrosities in English! Can some of you give literal translations of moderately-complex Germanic blazons, to give me an idea? —Tamfang (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Coat of arms of Wrocław

Here's one example: the coat of arms of Wrocław. It is specified by a local law written in Polish, but dates back to times when the city was German. Here's a rough, literal translation of the legal source (might use some polish):

The coat of arms of Wrocław is a shield divided by a cross into four fields:

1. In the upper right (heraldically) field, a lion rampant leftwise with a crown on its head, an open mouth and a raised, forked tail. The lion is white with a black contour, the crown yellow with a black contour and a red background.
2. In the left field an eagle with symmetrically unfolded wings, its head turned right, with a clearly distinguished crescent-shaped band across its torso and wings, with an even-armed cross in the middle. The eagle is black, the crescent and cross white and the background yellow.
3. In the right bottom field a capital letter "W" with slab serifs – black on a yellow background.
4. In the bottom left field the head of St. John the Evangelist en face, with the face of a young man with feminine curls, with a halo around the head, placed in an inverted crown. The head is white with a black contour, the halo and the crown yellow with a black contour, the background red.
5. In the center of the four-field shield, the head of St. John the Baptist half-turned right, inside a round platter. The head is white with black hair and beard, the platter is white with a double black contour.

And here's the same text rendered into a Norman-English blason:

Quarterly Gules and Or:

1. In dexter chief a lion rampant queue fourché erect facing sinister Argent armed and langued Or outlined Sable crowned Or outlined Sable;
2. In sinister chief an eagle displayed inverted Sable across its breast and wings a crescent Argent issuant therefrom a crosslet of the same;
3. In dexter base a majucscule W serifed Sable;
4. In sinister base St. John the Evangelist's head affronty with a youth's face and lady-like hair Argent outlined Sable nimbed Or outlined Sable issuant from an inverted crown Or outlined Sable;
5. Over all a plate Argent double-bordered Sable charged with St. John the Baptist's head Argent bearded and crined Sable semi affronty turned towards the dexter.

— Kpalion^(talk) 22:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the example, Kpalion. I think this example may support Tamfang's approach of using a standardized Anglo-Norman blazon. I think we have basically two approaches represented in this discussion (so far): 1) provide a plain English (non-standardized) description in the article prose, with a footnote to provide the legal description in the vernacular with a reference; 2) provide a plain English (non-standardized) description in the article prose, followed by a standardized Anglo-Norman blazon in parentheses with an inline citation. I would like to suggest a third way at this point: provide a standardized Anglo-Norman blazon in the article prose, with a footnote to provide the legal description in the vernacular with a reference. This suggestion is not only for the sake of argument, but I think there is something to be said for the precision of Blazon. With non-standardized descriptions, we may end up with more confusion for the reader than with unfamiliar Blazon. I think it is important to at least link to (or provide a reference to) the original legal description, but I could definitely see the value in quoting it in a footnote. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 10:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Kpalion, but do Polish blazons normally use such language? This looks like it was written by (and/or for) non-heralds. I was hoping for a translation of regular heraldic language. —Tamfang (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

For a quick conclusion, it has become clear that the foreign language should not be in the article, but all efforts should be made to link or quote it in the footnote. Correct (yes/no)? Once you take that point out, you are left with 'do we put blazons in articles?' - I understand it's essentially 'made up' - i.e. it is not the legal basis, but it is definitley connected with the same question in articles about coats of arms are specified in blazon. If this were (say) and english coat-of-arms discussion, I'd overwhelmingly say 'yes, include the blazon in the article'. But I am really not sure about countries that do not specify things in Anglo-Norman Blazon (good term, BTW). - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 10:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

There are pros and cons to both solutions:

	Literal translation in layman's terms	Rendering into an Anglo-Norman blazon
Pros	Understood by non-specialists More accurate and verifiable	More concise and elegant Less confusing for a specialist
Cons	Possibly awkward and confusing	Speculative and close to original research Hermetic to non-specialists Possible problems if the source specifies elements which are not normally blazoned, such as the shape of the shield

— Kpalion^(talk) 12:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Good summary. I'd point out that with articles that include Anglo-Norman Blazoning, there is usually a need for explanatory prose (not like the literal translation above, if you can appreciated the difference), whereas there wouldn't need to be in a literal translation. Problem or opportunity, as you see it. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 13:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Should I say (rather than "a plain English description in the article prose") "a plain English translation (as close as possible to the original wording) in the article prose"? I think it's important that we stick close to the official text, rather than just trying to describe some image which may or may not be technically accurate, or which may lead to an inaccurate and confusing description. Also, I would question whether a layman's description is inherently more accurate than a proper blazon. I would hold that in most cases, an Anglo-Norman blazon is quite accurate, the exception being those cases in which a form that never occurs in British heraldry is described. The primary instance I see where further description is necessary is when a complex shield shape is specified. Most anything on a shield can be accurately and concisely described in Blazon.

In a related note, I have also noticed that the Blazon article leaves quite a bit to be desired, particularly in the area of referencing and citations. I'll work to improve it, but having a good Blazon article would help a lot for unfamiliar users. I'd like to put improving that article to GA status or above somewhere near the top of H&V's priority list. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 12:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed solution

This is a proposed style guide for writing foreign-language heraldic descriptions in H&V articles:

A translation into standard English of the original/official description, and not merely an English-language description of a heraldic image, should be used in the article's main text. The original foreign-language wording of the official description should be directly linked to in a reference and, optionally, reproduced in a footnote, but usually should not appear in the main text of the article. This is to provide simple descriptions accessible to the widest possible audience while avoiding original research and retaining the highest possible level of verifiability. Anglo-Norman Blazon works well for describing British heraldry, but should be avoided in translating foreign-language sources.

Please comment on this proposal. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 15:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Anglo-Norman or "Frenglish" Blazon may be problematic in some foreign-language sources, particularly when the original/official description is constructed in a radically different style. In such cases, contorting the translation into Blazon can render a poor translation. Introducing Blazon to some articles may also be needlessly confusing to readers who are unfamiliar with it. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 15:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support. As long as a simple translation is understandable, this is by far the best way of doing things; with the caveat that some sources do use Blazon outside the UK, but these are rare, and you can consider them reasonable exceptions any way. I suggest if this proposal is carried, we put it somewhere for future reference other than here. To that extent, I've swung a little away from Blazon and simple description (I didn't really think about direct translation) as a transmission means. Here's my summary:

• Don't artifically create Blazon where it is not an official means;
• Try to stick to a direct translation of original source(s) as closely as is understandable;
• Use references or footnotes to link to the original foreign language source, or copy thereof, where this is possible;
• Quoting choice words from a foreign language is acceptable where it would be in the rest of Wikipedia.

This should agree exactly with the proposal above. If it doesn't, point that out. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c, rfa)} 15:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - what's this, a logical proposal on Wikipedia? Something that actually makes sense? I am shocked. Seriously. //roux   16:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

What about sources that provide an original / "official" description, but also provide a hack blazon in Anglo-Norman blazon. I'm thinking specifically about the Szymański works on the earliest Polish coats of arms and similar works. Szymański's book on 14th century Polish heraldry is entirely in Polish, cites 14th century sources, but also provides an Anglo-norman blazon (sometimes reasonable and sometimes odd). Would this proposal prohibit using Szymański's own descriptions? --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I would say in that case use an authoritative English translation, (hacked) blazon in a footnote.//roux   05:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Roux on this one. The same rule should apply, and in this case the hack blazon may (or may not) be preferred over the Polish for inclusion in the footnote, and in either case, the source should be linked if possible or directly quoted in the footnote if not. The main text should provide a standard English translation of the original Polish though. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 12:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

So, to be sure I understand, an English description written by me would be preferred over the English description in the published source. Yes? --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

If one is a translation of an official source, then this is prioritised. If both are merely a description, an observation, then it's your choice, although a published source is usually better. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c, rfa)} 13:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

A description written by you would not be preferred over an English description in the published source; a translation of the original language would be preferred over a dubious English description in the published source. Thanks for asking that question! Wilhelm_meis (talk) 15:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It's worth noting here that translation of non-English language sources falls under WP:NONENG, which is a subsection of WP:V (and hence policy). The above suggestions seem to comply however, so there's not a problem. For convenience the relevant passage is

English-language sources are preferable to sources in other languages so that readers can easily verify the content of the article. However, sources in other languages are acceptable where an English equivalent is not available. Where editors translate a direct quote, they should quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors.

Dr pda (talk) 15:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the last sentence of the proposal. Anglo-Norman blazon works just fine for a great majority of Continental arms. —Tamfang (talk) 02:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Say the official description is in Polish. Surely a translation would make more sense than artificially creating a blazon, and then having to explain what it means? I think that would be clunky, and unnecessary. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 09:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I was leaning toward the use of Blazon myself, because it is more concise and less ambiguous than standard modern English, but what swayed me toward using standard modern English translations is that it is the only way to make our articles accessible to the widest possible audience, while Blazon is rather jargony. As Jarry points out, we shouldn't translate it from one language our reader doesn't understand into another and then have to explain that. I definitely agree that use of Blazon has its advantages and is extremely subject-appropriate, and I wish all our readers had a good understanding of the language of Blazon, but the reality is that many of them don't. I do intend to still use some Anglo-Norman terms where they are the most appropriate term, but sparingly and with clarification. I would like to see our articles become a great source for readers to learn about the language of heraldry as well as its forms, and some articles do that better than others, but we can't simply demand that our readers come in with a good understanding of Blazon. At the same time, I would hate to see any of our articles become sanitized of Blazon and I would encourage its use where appropriate, but in a way that is colorful and enlightening and not jargony. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 12:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not objecting to the substance of the policy; but a statement thereof ought not to contain obvious inaccuracies. —Tamfang (talk) 22:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Version 2

A translation into standard English of the original/official description, sourced wherever possible, and not merely an English-language description of a heraldic image, should be used in the article's main text. The original foreign-language wording of the official description should be directly linked to in a reference and, optionally, reproduced in a footnote, but usually should not appear in the main text of the article. This is to provide simple descriptions accessible to the widest possible audience while avoiding original research and retaining the highest possible level of verifiability. When a sourced translation is unavailable, a plain English description should be used. Anglo-Norman Blazon should be used only when there is a reputable source providing the blazon text itself, in order to avoid possible original research.

Modified the last sentence. Thoughts? //roux   03:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the last sentence, but not with "When a sourced translation is unavailable, a plain English description should be used" - if you can translate it yourself to a level where accuracy is perfect, then I'd prefer this to be used, rather than a description (but that is a preference, not a requirement). Everything else's OK. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 10:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC) Withdrawing objection. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 15:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose very strongly. The reason I oppose this is the mistaken presumption that translation into Anglo-Norman technical jargon is original research. It is not. If I translate something from German into Danish, it is not original research; it is translation. If I translate a German blazon into another language, I can choose whichever words I wish. I might choose to translate the blazon into standard English (which might be the American English dialect, or British English dialect), or I might choose to translate the blazon into Anglo-Norman technical jargon. Either way, it is not Original Research; it is translation. In general I think that since people interested in this topic are used to heraldic vocabulary (or will become used to it), it seems to me that it is probably easier to translate into Anglo-Norman than into standard English, which is often rather unwieldy. I have done this, actually. See the arms of Nicholas Williams. The original blazon of those arms is in Irish (Ar airgead dhá dhing ar fud na scéithe dearg agus trí chúigdhuille lí-aistrithe); I translated this as Argent two piles throughout gules three cinquefoils counterchanged. In literal, standard English (that is, a straight translation of the Irish), would it be 'On white, two red triangles throughout the shield and three cinqfoils colour-changed'. Is this better than the Anglo-Norman? I don't believe so. One option I thought of, however, could be a stylistic thing we might employ generally. Since Anglo-Norman is obscure to many, should it not always be translated? How about these rules:

• For English-language blazons, give the blazon in Anglo-Norman, as it is in the original/official description. Footnote a translation into standard English.
• For Foreign-language blazons, give the blazon translated into Anglo-Norman. Footnote the foreign blazon, as it is in the original/official description, followed by a translation into standard English.

or

• For Foreign-language blazons, give the blazon as it is in the original/official description. Footnote a translation into Anglo-Norman, followed by a translation into standard English.

It seems to me that this would cater to (1) heraldic experts who use the Wikipedia, (2) people learning heraldry who use the Wikipedia. and (3) casual users who may not give a toss about heraldic terminology but who may be confused by blazonry. -- Evertype·✆ 11:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up: At Coat_of_arms_of_Nunavut there is a bit of a mess. The genuine blazon in Anglo-Norman is given in the text, but in the Infobox there is a mishmash of Anglo-Norman and standard English. I think the Infoboxes should have Anglo-Norman originals or Anglo-Norman translations as a matter of course. Then the rules as I suggested just above could apply within the articles. But no question, the Nunavut infobox has got to be edited. I had a look at Coat_of_arms_of_Ireland and that too needed a bit of editing... just uncapitalizing Argent and capitalizing Or, though. -- Evertype·✆ 11:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with much of the above. There's absolutely no point putting a whole chunk of a foreign language into a language here ont eh English language Wikipedia. In fact, it's against the guideline quoted above. Similarly, Having an article that says "The coat of arms of Brittany is "Ermine"" means nothing to most readers. In any case with a blazon, you must include an explaination, however detailed. Most languages do not have a whole other language to describe coats of arms, and therefore it's unnecessarily complicated to translate into a blazon. We should not be using blazon for German arms, for example, which are in (largely) German plain text - tinctures are acutally just the German names for the colours themselves, for example. Ireland is a somewhat exception in this case. Here are my points phrased like yours:

• For English-language blazons, give the blazon in Anglo-Norman, as it is in the original/official description. Explain as required for understandability. Cite original source for blazon.
• For Foreign-language blazons given in foreign plaintext, translate into English plaintext. Little or no explaination should be necessary. Cite or include foreign source in reference or footnote respectively (latter prefered).
• Anything else is an exception, but do not use Anglo-Norman blazon without explaination. Reserve foreign language original for footnote or cite (as above).

I can't stress enough how we shouldn't be either dumping blazonry, or foreign languages into articles, the latter at all. For your example, I suggest a translation thus: White, with two red triangles throughout the shield and three cinqfoils in a reversed colo[u]r' You could then define what a cinquefoil is in brief, with a wikilink. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 13:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

"Dumping"? Please. I was proposing a structured way of dealing with several different things consistently. One, we have Anglo-Norman blazons. Two, we have foreign blazons. Either may be obscure to some readers, if they do not know English blazonry (though many readers of Heraldry articles may be learning it) or if they do not know the foreign language. Either way you may need a translation. The Nunavut infobox example is an example of a bad translation. It's half Anglo-Norman blazonry interspersed with glosses. This is offputting. Keeping the blazon as it is and footnoting a complete translation seems to me to be much better. It doesn't impede reading for someone who can read Anglo-Norman blazonry, and it allows for a very complete translation where necessary (if the achievement is complex). Where we have a foreign language blazon, I can see your point for not necessarily putting it in the main text. In that case, for consistency, the blazon should be translated into standard Anglo-Norman, and the original foreign term and a standard English translation can be given in a footnote. Otherwise we end up with a mish-mash.

So I stand by my suggestion:

• For English-language blazons, give the blazon in Anglo-Norman, as it is in the original/official description. Footnote a translation into standard English.
• For Foreign-language blazons, give the blazon translated into Anglo-Norman. Footnote the foreign blazon, as it is in the original/official description, followed by a translation into standard English.

Regarding your suggestion about the Irish translation, I must beg to differ. To say that Nicholas' arms are blazoned White, with two red triangles throughout the shield and three cinqfoils in a reversed colour ((they are Irish arms; no need to be coy about color/colour) is very strange indeed. That plaintext English translation isn't a "blazon"; blazons in English use Anglo-Norman technical terminology and syntax. Moreover, lí-aistrithe means, literally, "colour changed", not "in a reversed colour". Or, if you looked at the Irish-English glossary of Nicholas' book on Irish heraldry, you will find "lí-aistrithe: counterchanged". Note that Irish blazonry isn't entirely plain text; the position of dearg 'red' in Nicholas' blazon is not standard for instance. -- Evertype·✆ 15:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I should say that I do indeed understand what make technical articles accessible means, but I don't believe that it is right to "dumb them down". In the English language, blazonry's Anglo-Norman terminology is part of the warp and weft of heraldry. Translations make the articles accessible. Hiding blazonry doesn't, in my opinion. Better to give it, consistently, and footnote translations as a matter of consistent style. -- Evertype·✆ 15:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

(Undent) I did actually suggest that Irish was an exception because it used non-standard language. I'm also not suggesting we don't use blazons where it is the official means. It was a poor example I used, but it serves a point here: we cannot assume people know blazon, nor should we attempt to make them learn it by relagating plaintext. In both your points, we end up with a situation where the only actual explaination of the arms is in a 'language', terminology, jargon, whatever, that many, if not most, readers would not understand. This seems flawed. We definitely either need a translation or a plaintext description. If you note my points a while back, I was suggesting that translations did not need to be word-perfect from one language to another, but rather as close to to make it understandable. If you take this page, a short, poor page that I created, you'll see that a description or translation is necessary. You can't simply have: "The coat of arms of Saxe-Weimar-Eisnach is" and then an Anglo-Norman blazon. In no way am I suggesting we 'hide' blazonry. There's no point quoting a foreign language (Polish, German, etc.) which you seem to accept, and we should translate this into readable-by-the-majority English, otherwise, IMO, we'll need both a blazon, and a translation or description, and a link to the original source. It's unnecessarily complicated. 15:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

(Was that you, Jarry? You didn't sign.) As an example, I have edited Nicholas_Williams#Coat_of_Arms as described above. I'll look at your link shortly. But I do think that it's reasonable to give blazons in full. In fact I think they're essential for any article about any achievement. I think that the plain English belongs in the footnote, along with the German or Irish as necessary. See Nicholas' page to see what I mean. It's pretty friendly. -- Evertype·✆ 15:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I hit five tildes and not four. Anyway, a) I've cleaned it for you and b) more to the point, that entire paragraph means nothing to someone without a knowledge of blazonry. By simply replacing the blazon with a description or translation, you solve that problem. You could even put the AngloNorman in the footnote instead. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 15:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I added links from that article to various heraldry pages. But I disagree with you. There's a picture. You can look at the picture as well as reading a "description". The interesting thing is the blazon which describes the picture, and blazons in English are Anglo-Norman. I think I still like the way I've done it: a proper blazon, with the Irish original and a plain English translation in the footnotes. The person who has no knowledge of blazonry now has a link to blazon and the translation in the footnote. And I do think the foreign blazon should be in the footnote. I just think that the translation in the text should be in Anglo Norman (since it is a blazon) and that a verbose explanation should also be in the footnote. -- Evertype·✆ 16:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict, posted after comment below)It is my opinion that you cannot expect people to look in footnotes if they didn't understand. That's not usual practise, so I doubt readers would catch on. Giving the original source (in this case, the Irish) in a footnote helps to ensure accuracy and reliability, which is more the point of footnotes. Also, images should not be relied upon to impart information, not least because a significant minority of WP don't use images, for multiple reasons. Images should compliment text. I'm unable to find a policy or guideline, which is odd. That pages is a good example, though. I've never encountered, as far as I recall, any page that uses footnotes or references to explain jargon or similar language, whereas we have thousands of pages which explain particular terms inline - whilst the wikilinks help, that's better for single words, where one might gain knowlege of what something was simply by following the link. I'm not convinced it is enough here. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 16:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

(Undent) Regarding the proposed solution, I still oppose it. At a minimum. an editor should be free to use Anglo Norman blazon or standard English when he chooses to translate a foreign blazon. I think the policy as written is wrong in terms of its assumption that translation into Anglo-Norman is "original reseach" while translation into standard English is not. The basic principles should be reconsidered in this light. -- Evertype·✆ 16:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

My concern, and why I think it can be OR, is that there is only one accurate blazon for any given coat of arms (which is sort of the whole point of blazon). While some of us here may be expert enough to come very close, we should only ever use that original and completely correct blazon. For Brittany, sure, that's easy. For Canada or the UK, for example, that can be slightly more difficult; in the former case someone not 100% familiar with the subject could blazon the maple leaves in base as either gules or vert depending on which version they are looking at (the official blazon describes them as proper), and for the latter one could blazon quarterly 1st and 4th England 2nd Scotland 3rd Ireland which while technically speaking is correct, is not the legal and official blazon. Those may be poor examples due to how easy it is to find the relevant documentation, but one could easily see the same problems occurring with (for example) the Wroclaw COA displayed above. So we should only ever be using official documentation (which may or may not be in blazon) or translation and plain-English description; it cannot be OR to describe an image in plain English ("Brittany's coat of arms is white with ermine spots"), while it could be when translating to technical jargon ("Canada: ... three maple leaves vert"). //roux   16:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Blazons should be considered definitive and IMO should therefore come from a definitive source. Constructing a blazon, is artifically difinitive - it may be considered factual, official, for example, by the readership, without actually possessing that quality. In Nicholas Williams, that's definitely a problem - the way it is phrased makes it sound like it is from a reliable source, which it isn't. WP:OR is about people stating their own , new viewpoints as fact. While I appreciate you're not actually saying it is in the article, several things (like "the blazon") give it the impression it's fact, whereas plaintext wouldn't, since it's made on a level equal to the readers, and not a higher one, if you get the idea. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 16:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, thank you for saying it better: stating that something "is blazoned" or "the blazon is" carries an air of officiality or definitiveness where none in fact may exist. And indeed may be entirely inappropriate in cases where Anglo-Norman blazon is simply not used. //roux   16:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I really don't understand how you can characterize one type of translation as OR and another as not. Any translation is dependent on the skill and choices of the translator. And all are subject to review and editing on the Wikipedia. I take your point about the authoritative appearance of blazon; In the case of Nicholas' blazon, therefore, I guess I should revert. The authoritative blason should be given, and then its translation, with, again, explanation in a footnote. (The translation is authoritative, since I checked it with Nicholas myself, and as he has written the definitive book on Irish heraldry (and since you can examine the English blazon yourselves) no more need be said. The policy as outlined above, however, seems to me to be prejudicial against blazonry in a way which really does dumb down the educative value of the Wikipedia. I'll attend to Nicholas' article with another suggestion and get back to you here. -- Evertype·✆ 17:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a diference. Compare these two sentences:

• The blazon of the arms of Neville is Gules, a saltire argent.
• The arms show a white saltire in a red background.

In this case, the first states the matter as fact. Seeing as I made it up, I'm stating my own work as factual, which is a no-no. The second is merely an observation. It is not original research as it is merely a description. Nothing there says it is the only correct decription, nor is it offical, or definitive. That's the difference.

On your particular example, that's covered in the proposal (Roux's version) which says "Anglo-Norman Blazon should be used only when there is a reputable source providing the blazon text itself". If it's in the book, clearly that's a reliable source for the blazon, and you should probably cite it. If you're reading between the lines, that analysis or synthesis, which is another no-no with WP:OR. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 18:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Your Neville example is not a translation though. I think it's just as legitimate (and helpful to people who are interested in heraldry and blazon) to translate a non-English blazon into Anglo-Norman terminology as it is to give a prose description. -- Evertype·✆ 18:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

My Neville example, most importantly is my own work which is precisely the definition of original research, it cannot be included. If I'd got it somewhere else, then it would fall under the reliable source bit in the proposal. That's the crux here. There is now way on earth that own work should be included - they're not my words. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 18:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Our own policies state that translations should come from authoritative sources--should there be an authoritative source for Norman blazon, then by all means we should use it (though I would argue that for educative purposes we must always have a plaintext description explaining the blazon). I wouldn't for a moment say we are dumbing down anything; we must always look to secondary sources for our facts and translations. While I abhor Wikipedia's antipathy towards experts, we do need to be careful about appointing ourselves experts; those who are experts in the field could reasonably write correct blazons, but again the authoritative nature of a blazon--which we all know is the actual definition of a given COA--trips us up. For that reason alone we should always quote blazon from a secondary source and never write it ourselves. I think again that the example of the maple leaves on Canada's COA is particularly apt; it's a distinction that someone unfamiliar with the history would not recognise, and would blazon improperly (pardon the horrendous pun; I couldn't resist). //roux   18:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

After ec: what Jarry said precisely. While blazon does follow strict rules, there can be ambiguity (again the Canada example), and so we should limit ourselves to what anyone can see with their own eyes. Unless, again, there's a definitive source. But, again again, we should always include plaintext to allow our readers to educate themselves ("Oh, so that's what a saltire is!") about heraldic practice. In that vein, it would seem inappropriate to shoehorn the Anglo-Norman style into heraldic traditions that don't use it; would be akin to transliterating Cantonese into English without using one of the established methods--and secondary sources--for doing so. //roux   18:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I've edited (and expanded) the paragraph on Nicholas' arms. It gives the official blazon, a rendering into Anglo-Norman (with caveat), and in a footnote gives a plain paraphrase. -- Evertype·✆ 18:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I think that's almost right but not quite. The English translation should be in the main paragraph, not a footnote, and the Anglo-Norman blazon should be removed entirely unless it can be cited. Otherwise it's OR, whether or not a disclaimer is included. //roux   18:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The Anglo-Norman is as legitimate a translation of the Irish as the standard English is—except that it is authentically heraldic, not a dumb literal translation—and I should know, as I made both translations, so either both of them are OR or neither of them is. The Anglo-Norman translation does not pretend to be what is written on the grant of arms. (I have a scan of the grant of arms here, that Nicholas gave me.) He has also vetted the Anglo-Norman translation, as can any of you, I am sure. -- Evertype·✆ 18:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Whilst I understand your point, here is my view. The official Irish description does not say what the English blazon is. This mean it is not taken from a reliable source. However, the English description is in the Irish version, because the Irish version does describe what it looks like. So a description is backed up by the Irish, but the blazon isn't. You can make statements like it shows two red piles, and then cite the Irish, but you can't feasibly state the blazon and back it up with refs, even if he told you it was correct. This is the key diference for OR purposes. One is taken from a source, the other isn't. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 18:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

So there's no source for either translation? Please refrain from using words like 'authentic' and 'dumb'; Anglo-Norman blazon is only authentic for heraldic systems which use Anglo-Norman blazon, and literal translations are essential for our readership. It is not authentic for those which don't. And, unfortunately, private correspondence with Nicholas is not a reliable source and cannot be verified. I know it may seem like I'm quibbling, but we (as a project) seriously need to tighten up the rigour with which we source facts. //roux   18:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Eh? Source for translation? Nonsense. "Giv mig bogen og jeg skal læse den". I can translate this for you: 'Give me the book and I will read it'. What is my source for the translation? I am bilingual. I and many others have edited many many articles and providing translation is something we do, all the time. It beggars belief that you're suggesting that translation is Original Research. Multilingualism is a cornerstone of the Wikipedia. (And I'm a member of the Language Committee too.) Are you suggesting that a translation is a sourceable fact? That I (or someone else) cannot translate a blazon or a book title from one language to another without finding it pre-translated in some external source? That would be… outrageous, and would shut down tens of thousands of articles immediately. No, I'm sorry, I can't accept your interpretation of OR here. It's not that you're quibbling; it's that you've misapprehended the nature of translation. (In Ireland by the way both English and Irish are co-official; formal grants of arms may have official blazons in one language or the other, or both.) A blazon is a string of text. If it is in German, it can be translated into Hungarian, or into standard English, or into Anglo-Norman technical terminology. There is no essential difference. So long as a translation does not misrepresent itself —by implying that it is in a formal grants document for instance— it is just a translation. I can't see why translation into Anglo-Norman should be avoided on principle. -- Evertype·✆ 19:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Please also avoid using words like 'nonsense' and 'beggars belief'. We're trying to have a reasonable conversation here. Again, see my examples regarding the Canadian and UK coats of arms and the concerns with blazoning them. That is why there can be OR and why unsourced blazons cannot be considered as anything other than OR and possibly riddled with mistakes. //roux   19:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Please imagine my genuine shock at what I think you are suggesting. And I'm not talking about writing blazons on foot of looking at the achievement. I'm talking about translating a formal blazon from a source language (like Irish) to a target language, and I am saying that it is just as legitimate to translate into Anglo-Norman terminology as it is to translate into verbose English. -- Evertype·✆ 19:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Break

Tracking back a bit here, if you assume the sources are in English, an Irish or other foreign language source says somehting like "Green, with a white stripe and a fleur-de-lis". So suggesting a descriptive piece like "The coat of arms shows a white stripe, with a fleur-de-lis, then you can attribute this to the source. The source, however, does not back up any blazon. Sources must directly back up the fact in question, and since a source normally doesn't mention what the blazon would be if it were in English, it is unlikely to directly back up any blazon created. This is the very important difference. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 19:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is your reply to this point? If you understand it, it should make clear the difference between a blazon and translation or description. Do you appreciate this difference, or would you like me to explain further, which I'm happy to do? - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 19:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand it. If I have a formal blazon Ar ór torc siúlach gorm, na starrfhiacla agus na crúba airgidí; ar bharr gorm grian ghathach ar fud an sciathbhairr órga and I want to translate it, there is nothing wrong with my translating it "Or a boar passant azure armed and unguled argent on a chief azure a sun rayonnant throughout Or". That is a completely accurate translation, into a precise technical terminology. Indeed, a narrative like "a shield of gold on which is a walking blue boar with white tusks and hooves together with a blue bar above on which is placed a golden sun with rays going to the edges" is far less concise and less accurate; it is less a translation than a paraphrase. I don't understand why you want to avoid (or ban) translation into proper heraldic English—so long as it is clear what is the authoritative original and what is an editor's translation, the translation is as good, and must be as acceptable, as any editor's translation on the WIkipedia. -- Evertype·✆ 20:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Translating to blazon is not backed up by the source. Take a language I'm more familiar with, German. The coat of arms of Lower Saxony, legallly, is "das weisse Ross im roten Felde". A translation would be "a white horse on a red field". If I were to say that "the coat of arms shows a white horse on a red background" this would be supported by official sources, because the German says exactly that. However, if I were to say that the coat of arms could be blazoned "Gules, a horse argent", that is not backed up by any source. I just created it. This goes against WP:OR. This is because there is no source that says that the blazon is that. All factual statements must have independent sources, and this fails that criterion. So a description can use the source to pass OR, but a blazon can't because it isn't expressly stated in the source. WP:OR is quite clear in what it says. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 20:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

But... when you translated das weisse Ross im roten Felde, as a white horse on a red field you just created that. Just as you created this is a white horse on a red background. And it is no different from you creating gules, a white horse. All three are renderings of German into English, made by an editor and not taken from some other source. Translating from one language to Anglo-Norman is no different from translating from one language to any other language. I don't believe you are right with your German example. Here is one that is analogous. We have Irish An Roinn Cultúir, Ealaíon agus Fóillíochta. This can be translated into one dialect of English (a dialect which you know) as Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure. It can also be translated into another variety of English (a variety with which you are not familiar, Ulster Scots), as Männystrie o Fowkgates, Airts an Aisedom. Anglo-Norman is just another specialized form of English. A translation of German or Irish into it is not Original Research. It is Translation. If in German the formal blazon is das weisse Ross im roten Felde, one way of translating it (into a more or less context-free form) would be the white horse in the red field or a white horse in a red field depending on how you wanted to represent it to your audience. But an equally legitimate and correct translation (into a specialized context vocabulary) is gules, a horse argent. Ulster Scots is a specialized variety of English; Anglo-Norman blazonspeak is a specialized variety of English. The process of translation is the same; the translation is reversible (you can put it back into German—give or take the articles). I don't believe you can say that one kind of translation is OR (and inappropriate to the Wikipedia) and all the other kinds of translation are just fine. That isn't logical. So long as a translation into Anglo-Norman doesn't pretend to be anything but a translation, it is just a set of choices the translator makes instead of other choices (like "the horse" and "a horse" to represent "das Ross"). -- Evertype·✆ 21:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did make the straight transslation, but I can cite it to the original German. You can't cite the blazon to it. Which part of that do you disagree with, whether you can't cite the translation, or you can cite the blazon? - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 10:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying that you are making an artificial distinction between one kind of translation and another. One makes a translation with reference to the context of the original and the context of the intended reader or readers. We have, here, a formal German blazon, written down on a formal Grant of Arms: 'das weisse Ross im roten Felde. Here follow three translations:

• 'the white horse in the red field' — a literal, word-for-word translation, independent of the heraldic context
• 'a white horse in a red field' — a more natural, generic description in English, which does not use the definite article (in the context of heraldry) the same way German does
• 'gules, a horse argent' — a concise and formal translation of the German, using Anglo-Norman terminology as is usual in the context of heraldry in English.

The last does not imply that "gules, a horse argent" has the same status as the German original. It is, however, a legitimate translation of the formal German into three different varieties of English. -- Evertype·✆ 12:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not the case. The blazon required analysis and synthesis of new material. Everything has to have a reliable source on Wikipedia. You shouldn't, and can't, have this:

:::The coat of arms of Lower Saxony is Gules, a horse argent." :::::

because of this core policy of Wikipedia (emphasis not mine): To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented. This means that the German constituion used above does directly support a translation, but it doesn not directly support a blazon. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 12:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

No, Jarry, I'm sorry, but Gules, a white horse is a contextual translation of das weisse Ross im roten Felde. Anglo-Norman blazon is a style of English. Both a white horse in a red field and gules, a white horse are TRANSLATIONS of the German original. You're suggesting that one is a translation and the other is a "blazon". That's not the case. Both are translations. -- Evertype·✆ 13:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You suggested that "the blazon required analysis and synthesis of new material". Not so. The translation into Anglo-Norman required knowledge of Anglo-Norman conventions in order to hit that target, but that is no difference than knowing whether the white horse in the red field or a white horse in a red field is more appropriate. Translation into Anglo-Norman is just translation, dependent on the knowledge of the translator. Translation into standard English is just translation, dependent on the knowledge of the translator. Translation is translation. There is no linguistic "translation" function that differs from a linguistic "blazoning" function. It is just a matter of choosing the words and syntax into which one is translating. (That is a different thing from making sure that an article is clear on what is formally granted text and what is translated text.) -- Evertype·✆ 13:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Nothing in the German text says what the Anglo-Norman blazon is. However, it does say what a description is. Herein lies the difference. If you had a source that said what the Anglo-Norman blazon was, fine. The German sources does not do so. Take this English example. If I had an English source that said "The arms of Mr Blake had a blue background with a white cross on", then one could say, prefectly reliably, that the arms had a blue background with a white cross. What you couldn't say was the blazon was/is "Azure, a cross argent". If that original source has been in German, then we end up with a foreign language source, that backs up a description, but not a blazon. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 13:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I am halfway between really frustrated and a bit angry. Are you a monoglot, Jarry? Do you understand what translation is? Because you have ignored all of my references to it so far. I will try to explain this again. When you have text in one language, and wish to render it into another language, you must choose the grammar, the vocabulary, and the syntax into which you want to render the foreign original. The English language is particularly rich. In the case of a phrase like das weisse Ross im roten Felde, it is possible to make a literal, word-for-word translation, independent of the heraldic context:

• 'the white horse in the red field' — this is a translation

It is also possible to make a more natural, generic description in English, which does not use the definite article (in the context of heraldry) the same way German does:

• 'a white horse in a red field' — this is a translation

And it is possible to make a a concise and formal technical translation, using specialized grammar, vocabulary, and syntax, namely, the Anglo-Norman terminology which is usually used in the context of heraldry in English.

• 'gules, a horse argent' — this is a translation

One can translate gules, a horse argent back into German too. The literal translation (Rot, ein weisses Ross) would be a poor translation because German has no such specialized syntax. One possible rendering would be ein weisses Ross auf Rot; but a translator who knew that the context was heraldic, and who knew the conventional language of heraldry in German, would translate it as das weisse Ross im roten Felce. That's translation.

Translation of formal German or Irish blazons into Anglo-Norman Blazon is not original research. It is translation. -- Evertype·✆ 19:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You know I'm not a monoglot. I'm prepared to compromise - this is an imperfect world - in order to have a coherent structure (see proposal below), but I feel compelled to answer your challenge that I've been ignoring you. I'd remind you to keep civil. I really am listening, which is why I have edited my proposal to taken into account a fair whack of your views. Translating, if you want to call it that, into Anglo-Norman blazon is clearly a different idea to translating something into a language. I don't like the word to describe turning something into blazon because it implies it's on the same level a language. You create a blazon for something. I'm going to take the bait here though, as you seem seem indignant despite my concessions so far. At Wikipedia, everything has to have a reliable source. What would your source for a blazon be? The only source document here is the German. This cannot act as a source for the blazon because it does not tell you what the blazon is. I'm prepared to not enforce this if there is a plain English description accompanying it because that in itself helps prevent factual errors, and after all, that's the point of sources.

Well if you are listening, then I do not understand why you keep asserting that Anglo-Normal Blazon is something other than "language". Since your comments do not respond to my attempts to discuss this, I find it frustrating. Anglo-Norman Blazon is not, as I said, a language of its own. It is a variety of the English language. Its use is strongly context-dependent. Taking a string of text in German or Irish and rendering it into the precise vocabulary, grammar, and syntax of Anglo-Norman Blazon is translation into English—it's just translation into a peculiar variety of English that is used only to describe Things Heraldic. I really don't know how to get this through to you. Translation into Blazon or translation into baby-talk or translation into iambic pentametre is still translation. Therefore, translation of Ar ór torc siúlach gorm as Or, a boar passant azure is no more original research than translation as On gold a walking blue boar is. This is functional. It is not possible to say that the first is not an instance of translation whilst the second is: both are renderings of Irish into English, differing only in the register of language used (follow the link please). -- Evertype·✆ 08:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I've already built in Irish exemptions, although I'm not sure how much the Irish blazon is understandable to Irish speakers. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 08:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Is the exemption just to keep me happy? Because the principle I am arguing is that any foreign blazon may be legitimately translated by an editor into Anglo-Norman Blazon without violating any of the Wikipedia's conventions or practices. -- Evertype·✆ 11:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

A second point would be that the German was presented as plain, normal German text, as are coats of arms in Swedish heraldry. Wilhelm and I both believe it is therefore wrong to translate what is normal, standard, German text into something that isn't normal everyday English. It's not even more accurate to have in in Anglo-Norman, because we don't have any new information, nor does any Anglo-Norman term fit the German better than a plain English one. It's communicating to the reader on a level different to the original. Since, however, I feel we will have to agree to disagree on the former point, let's concentrate on when an Anglo-Norman might be the way to go. I agree with Wilhelm about this, his post of 14:20, 27 June 2009. I suggest we carry on debating the issue of when, and not if, to use Anglo-Norman under that post. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 19:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the German is presented as plain, normal German text. If you have a picture of the achievement and point to it and ask a child Was ist das? the normal answer you will get is Das ist ein weisses Ross in einem roten Feld. The use of the definite article in das weisse Ross im roten Feld would be an unusual answer for a child (or anybody else) to give. So even the German heraldic register differs from "plain, normal" text; it is "marked" for precision within the heraldic context. That is, even this one example isn't "vanilla". It uses a heraldic linguistic register.

What our problem is, it seems to me, is to find a convention that will indicate if a description in Anglo-Norman Blazon has been derived from a formal grant of arms, or if it is a translation by an editor from another language. But I maintain my view that it is legitimate—and indeed preferable—for an editor to choose to translate into Anglo-Norman Blazon, since that is the language of heraldry in English. -- Evertype·✆ 08:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a very considerable difference between English and German legal definitions. If you asked a German to draw "das weisse Ross im roten Felde" (the other way round to your thinking really), they'd have no problem at all. The colours use the same words as tinctures, they're all normal German words. I'm suprised the German used the definite article, but I think that's because they know which white horse they're talking about, and in any case, it's very minor compared with the large difference betweeen using words everyone understands, and words that under 1% in some cases (my guess) understand. If you aksed someone in England to draw "Gules, a horse argent" they'd have no idea at all, save it had a horse somewhere. It's presented on a whole different level. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 08:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The reason the German uses the definite article is that in the context of heraldic descriptions, a specialized linguistic register (or style) is used. In English, the specialized register (or style) is more obscure. That's the only difference. This is a matter of linguistics and I am becoming despondent, because I have done my best to explain it. Either I am a dismal failure at doing so, or you just don't want to listen—because you've shown no understanding that translation is translation, that translators make choices, and that even though weird and wonderful, Anglo-Norman Blazon is just a form of English into which a formal foreign blazon may be legitimately translated. -- Evertype·✆ 11:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Minor break

(edit conflict)(Undent) Better, yes, but not really far enough in my opinion. Is the blazon in a reliable source? If so, cite it. If it isn't, unfortunately the discussion above would suggest that the blazon is not particularly useful (although not damaging) as a general rule. I do think that plaintext - even one sentence - would have a considerably beneficial on the ability of others to appreciate the section. Although the amount of Irish is in this case quite small, since this is partly a general discussion, I'd like to point out foreign language text should not be put in articles. It can be cleverly included, however. For example, you could say "Although granted in Irish,<ref> The Irish is...</ref> it can be blazoned as ... and shows two red piles (vertically pointing rectangles) on a white background. There are also three trefoils in reverse colours to the background they are on.". I think now might be a good time to be considering what change you'd actually like to the proposed text, considering it already mention reliable sources for Blazons. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 18:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The phrase "although granted in Irish" sounds like it's apologizing for not being in a "real" language. I'm sure you didn't mean to offend. I spend most of my time dealing with articles on languages, linguistics, or Irish topics. I've never seen a ban on the use of non-English text in articles where it is relevant, useful, or interesting. Are you really suggesting that this project do that? -- Evertype·✆ 19:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't suggest it was an improper language. I'd be just as happy to say "Although granted in Polish/German/Swedish, it can be blazoned ..." becuase this simply ensures that the reader is aware that it wasn't grantedd in English. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 19:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It tickles my "lingistic sensitivity" button a bit nonetheless. -- Evertype·✆

Wait,in this section here above, are you saying that "it could be blazoned as XYZ" would be a way to permit the translation of an Irish/Polish/Whatever original into proper Heraldic terminology? -- Evertype·✆ 20:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, you're showing a bias here. Proper heraldic terminology is whatever terminology that style of heraldry uses. Anglo-Norman blazon is not proper heraldic terminology for all varieties of heraldic practice, in much the same way that Western musical notation isn't 'proper' notation for Indian and Asian musical forms. You can use it, but you cannot say it's authentic or proper. //roux   23:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It is a matter of linguistics and translation, nothing else. (I am going to bed now.) -- Evertype·✆ 23:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Except that blazon isn't a language, it is a very specific technical jargon which is not suited to all applications. And again please see my examples and the point about authoritative above for why we shouldn't be blazoning or translating into blazon on our own. Stating 'could be blazoned thus' is not a reasonable thing; we shouldn't be putting in disclaimers. //roux   00:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course it is. Blazon isn't a language. Anglo-Norman Blazon is a register of English which uses precise terminology and syntax. It is still English. When you are translating from Irish Ar dhearg capall airgid into English, both "on red a white horse" and 'gules, a white horse' are English-language translations of the original. There is no other kind of operation here but "translation". Rendering Ar dhearg capall airgid as "gules, a white horse" is just translation of a phrase from one language to another, whilst keeping to a particular set of conventions appropriate to the context. -- Evertype·✆ 12:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

That was assuming you had a source for the blazon, which was based on that fact you mentioned a book and it was, at that point, a specific example. I'd actually change "can be" to "has been". - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 20:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

No, once again that does not respond to my concern. Say the Irish blazon is published in Irish by the Chief Herald. That is the source blazon in the foreign language. It can be translated by a person who knows Irish, like me or someone else. So "can be" is appropriate if it is translated here, but "has been" would be appropriate if the translation had been done by someone else and published somewhere else. -- Evertype·✆ 21:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

If it's a blazon, it has to be done by someone else, as in conversation above (which I have a feeling is the actual disagreement). If it's a translation, it can be done by you, as long as it's backed up by a reliable source, which can be a foreign language. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 10:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow you. A coat of arms will have its letters patent and grant. The text on those is its formal or legal blazon. That formal blazon may be in English or Irish or German. Are we agreed on this point? -- Evertype·✆ 12:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I meant Anglo-Norma blazon, my mistake. You certainly can't put any foreign language extracts into articles longer than a couple of words. The formal blazon, if it is not in Anglo-Norman, can only be a source. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 12:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Plenty of articles use a bit of foreign text here and there. There is no ban on the use of foreign text in Wikipedia articles! Editors can put whatever they like into articles so long as it is well-motivated, useful, and clear. Where translation is needed, translation can be given. But there is no First Rule says "Avoid foreign text" or "restrict it to 'a couple of words'" in the English-language or any other Wikipedia. -- Evertype·✆ 13:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you got some examples? On the whole, any significant amount of a language they can't read is unhelpful to a reader. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 13:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Most articles that deal with language are more liberal than languages which don't. So at Euro sign or Wallaby you won't find much non-English text, but at Ogham, Runic alphabet, Blazon, Irish orthography, Volapük. Since Heraldry makes use of fairly specific linguistic conventions, citations in languages (with translations, likely in the body if not in footnotes) other than English can hardly be considered out of place here. -- Evertype·✆ 14:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we're actually closer in agreement that I thought. They all use a few words in non-English at any one time, normally followed by some sort of explaination. I'm fine to have that here. I do myself. I suggest we work on the guideline itself in the section two below. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 15:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Wilhelm's thoughts

Holy tldr Batman! I turn my back for one day and there's six miles of new discussion to review. I did my best though, and I gather the following two continuing themes: 1) Anglo-Norman Blazon is/not OR, while translation into standard modern English is not OR, and 2) Anglo-Norman Blazon is/not overly technical jargon. I have to say on the former point I agree completely with Evertype; a translation into Anglo-Norman is the same as any other translation, and we routinely translate things from one language to another every day on Wikipedia. On the second point, however, I do not believe that we can demand that our readers translate our articles, and I think use of large blocks of Anglo-Norman Blazon can be distracting and even frustrating for a significant portion of our readers. While I agree that a good understanding of Anglo-Norman Blazon and the structure and rules of blazonry is essential to an understanding of heraldry, I hope all our readers can leave with that understanding but I know many of them will not have it coming in. I absolutely disagree that translating anything into Anglo-Norman Blazon is WP:OR per se. The problem I have is that it is jargon and should be treated as such. I still stand by the caveat, however, that our articles should not be sanitized of Blazon and should provide enough information to foster an understanding of blazonry for the general reader. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 13:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

One point you haven't covered: would you offer a description or explaination other than the AN blazonin articles. It is my understanding that Evertype would prefer just blazon and no plaintext other than footnotes. I'd be happy to accept AN blazons really, as a compromise (I'd rather have a policy that everyone agreed with), if they were accompanied in the article text itself with some sort of exaplanation someone with at least little knowlege of heraldry would understand. I think I'll draft a proposal taking into account some of what you and Evertype think. Your thoughts? - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 13:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I prefer "more" rather than "less". I don't demand footnotes if inline (even in parentheses) is considered better. Very long blazons or their translations or originals might go to footnotes. Perhaps there's no ONE solution. -- Evertype·✆ 14:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

As I stated once before (it's somewhere up there, I assure you), in any case we should at a minimum link to the original (foreign-language) source text and preferably provide a direct "cut and paste" quote of it in a footnote. As much as I would love to have Anglo-Norman blazons for every achievement of arms on WP, I just don't think it's practical or proper to demand that our readers come to us ready and able to read and understand Anglo-Norman Blazon. (Note also that I use blazon when referring to the text, whether in Anglo-Norman or some other language, and Blazon when referring to the Anglo-Norman language of English blazonry.) I think if we are going to give preference to Anglo-Norman blazons in article text, we should give standard modern English clarifications, probably in-line. I tend to agree that expecting confused readers to follow us to a footnote for clarification of a block of abstruse text may be wishful thinking. For that reason, it may be preferable to give the Anglo-Norman blazon in italics, followed by a standard modern English explanation in parentheses, with the original foreign text in a footnote. This form, in fact, may well be the most useful to the widest possible audience. I don't see any clear prescription at WP:JARGON as to how much is too much or what form of clarification is preferred. I also mentioned earlier, somewhere, that my initial stance was in favor of Anglo-Norman blazons and only changed in light of WP:JARGON. If we can include AN blazons with sufficient clarification to make their use helpful to the uninitiated, that would certainly be the ideal solution. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 14:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposal 3

Right. This one should make enough use of Blazon that we are not omitting something that is useful, while retaining enough accessibility. I've split it up to any with with any discussion. I think a coherent policy is better, even if I don't agree exactly with absolutely everything, and that's the view I hope everyone should take, seeing as full agreement looks unlikely. Here goes:

1. A translation into standard English of the original/official description should be used as closely as possible in the article's main text as so it is understandable.
2. The original foreign-language wording of the official description should be directly linked to where possible in a reference and, optionally, reproduced in a footnote, but large extracts should not appear in the main text of the article.
3. This is to provide simple descriptions accessible to the widest possible audience while avoiding original research and retaining the highest possible level of verifiability.
4. When a sourced translation is unavailable, a plain English description should be used.
5. Anglo-Norman Blazon should be used when it adds to the accuracy or detail of a passage, and should be accompanied by a translation or description (as above).
6. This blazon should be referenced with a reliable source that defines it wherever possible -
7. Any Anglo-Norman blazon that is also an official description is likely to fulfil the above criteria.

- Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 13:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

If I may, I will try to address this point by point. 1) I think it may be clearer to say "A translation into standard English of the original/official description staying as close as possible to the original text should be used in the article's main text." But I think we may wish to say "A translation of a foreign language blazon into Anglo-Norman Blazon should be used in the article's main text, with a clarification in standard modern English to follow in parentheses." 2) The original foreign language text should be linked to in a footnote when possible and may be directly quoted in a footnote. When the source cannot be linked to (offline sources) the original text must be quoted in a footnote. 3) No comment. 4) By "sourced translation" do you mean a published translation into standard modern English? 5) Already covered at number 1. 6) By "referenced with a reliable source..." do you mean in any language? 7) Since this is to be a style guide specifically for dealing with foreign-language blazons, there is no need to decide what to do with a blazon that is already given in Anglo-Norman Blazon. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 14:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Good points. I don't think that a AN blazon should be prioritised where it doesn't exist already. Offline sources will be covered in 2) but that's symantics really. On 7) you're right, I'm getting confused. Struck. I've changed it around a bit, but I haven't actually changed it that much, only slightly on the description/translation issue.

1. A translation into standard English of the original/official description could be used as closely as possible in the article's main text as so it is understandable. Additional description can be used if the intended meaning is not clear.
2. An alternative would be a Anglo-Norman Blazon where sufficiently accurate and reliable: Anglo-Norman Blazon should be used when it adds to the accuracy or detail of a passage, and should be accompanied by a translation or description (as above).
3. This blazon should be referenced with a reliable source that defines it wherever possible
4. The original foreign-language wording of the official description should be directly linked to where online in a reference and, optionally, reproduced in a footnote, but large extracts should not appear in the main text of the article. If a source is offline, then the original text should be reproduced.
5. This is to provide simple descriptions accessible to the widest possible audience while avoiding original research and retaining the highest possible level of verifiability.

The only two points I want to make it is that is only a guideline anyway, it doesn't need to write in exceptions, because they are inherent in guideline status. Also, I feel strongly that AN blazon should remain an additional extra, and not replace main prose. That being said, it can of course be present (as outlined) as long as the reader without particular heraldic knowledge can understand already (this should be clear in the points above). - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 15:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Alas, I feel strongly that a prose paraphrase should be the additional extra, and that editors should be free to translate text into Blazon if they wish. What would be helpful would be a formula that could make clear the distinction between Blazon that is a translation of a foreign blazon, and Blazon that is the formal English blazon. I don't like the notion that translations into "standard English" are "better" or should take priority over translations into "Blazon". Since in Ireland an achievement may be formally blazoned in English or in Irish or in both, it makes no sense to have Irish-language blazons translated into Standard English rather than into Blazon, even if a particular achievement has no English. -- Evertype·✆ 18:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

If a prose paraphrase is optional, as is a blazon (see below), then are you suggesting that a plain English description is required. About "What would be helpful would be a formula that could make clear the distinction between Blazon that is a translation of a foreign blazon, and Blazon that is the formal English blazon.", we're talking about foreign arms, which don't have a formal English (i.e. Anglo-Norman) blazon. The only blazon we're talking about here is one that either the contributor, or another source, has created unofficially. If an Irish arms has both Irish and Anglo-Norman, the the latter is the "blazon" here (and should be included). The Irish has no place in the main text, but in a footnote. If it's just in Irish, it seems to me to be unnecessarily complicated to turn it into A-N and then explain. But then again, I am prepared to say you can, if you think the blazon adds something. "Foreign blazons" should be taken where none of the official descriptions are in Anglo-Norman. Here are some examples of what I feel are acceptable, and this should tie with the proposal:

• Description in plain English
• Translation
• Blazon, explanation or vice versa

Basically you can have any mix of description and translation (as close to translation as understandable preferred), but a blazon, used where appropriate, must be explained in some form, with explanation, description or translation so it is understandable by someone without heraldic knowledge. Yes the blazon's there, but also a non-heraldist can understand it. This should cover all bases. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 19:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I think a "description translated into plain English" can be much much longer than "a description translated into Anglo-Norman Blazon". For that reason I don't think that the sequence you give might be optimal.

The only blazon we're talking about here is one that either the contributor, or another source, has created unofficially. - which is the nub of the issue. We should not be creating unofficial blazons, period. For coats of arms where there is an official blazon, we should be using that. For non-UK/Canada/etc coats of arms, which do not use Anglo-Norman blazon it is both inappropriate and inaccurate to create one, not to mention (as I have said repeatedly) original research and presenting an air of authority where none is to be had. Further, including a disclaimer in the main text saying "this is not official but it could be done like so" is something I have seen nowhere else on Wikipedia, and with good reason: it blatantly fails one of our fundamental policies. I would be willing to compromise if any A-N blazons created by users were solely relegated to a footnote with text along the lines of: "Though the original grant of arms (in $language) was not written in the format that is used in most English-language heraldic practices, if it were to be written as such, one could use (insert A-N blazon here).

Even that makes my skin crawl from the point of view of NOR, because there is not a single source to support it and it requires us to make our own interpretations, (and again, blazon is a technical jargon, not a language; again it is akin to translating non-Western music into a Western paradigm by ear without a source for doing so) but it seems to be the only way to move forward allowing a couple of editors to cling to blazon as though it were the only acceptable worldwide way of describing coats of arms. It's not, but I guess we just have to live with it. //roux   20:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC) After ec, looks like Jarry is bringing up the same point below. //roux   20:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Please try to move to a different level of abstraction. Two of you keep saying "Anglo-Norman Blazon is not a language" as though that makes sense and puts an end to the discussion. But it is mistaken. Anglo-Norman Blazon is a register of English used in a particular context. It is just as much a linguistic phenomenon as any other utterance in English. It is true that "a formal granted blazon" (whether written in Anglo-Norman Blazon, in Irish, or in German) is a piece of text which has a particular status, and that is something that we should not confuse with other translations. The argument you seem to be making is that only Heralds can or should write text in Anglo-Norman Blazon, and that just does not make sense to me, as it is a question of the choice of a translator.

In linguistics a hypothetical reconstructed form is conventionally preceded by an asterisk. Perhaps that could help us here to distinguish between a formal granted blazon and the translation of a foreign blazon. -- Evertype·✆ 08:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course saying that blazon isn't a language makes sense. It isn't a language. It is a highly specialised technical jargon that uses two other languages for its vocabulary. It is incapable of describing anything outside of that very narrow field. Stop being insulting. And no, the argument I am making is categorically not that only heralds should write in A-N, but that we should not unless we have an actual source for it because Wikipedia requires reliable sources for all facts. → ROUX ₪ 11:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I object to that, because on the Wikipedia multilingual editors make translations every day. No editor requires an external source to defend his translation and rendering a foreign blazon into Anglo-Norman Blazon is translation just like any other kind of translation. -- Evertype·✆ 11:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

And I object to your continued harping that blazon is somehow a language. It's not. It can only be used to describe one thing. You cannot render into blazon any more than you can--repeating myself again, but you keep ignoring it--render non-Western music into Western notation without a reliable source showing that it is correct. We don't care about truth here on Wikipedia, we care about verifiability. Rendering your own blazon from a foreign language source is inherently unverifiable. I don't know how to make it any clearer than that. A multilingual person (not someone trained as a translator; someone who happens to speak two languages) could reasonably translate La plume de ma tante est sur la table into My aunt's pen is on the table because it is a very simple sentence. Translating a chunk of The Hunchback of Notre Dame would require a source due to its complexity. The same principle is at work here, and it is far better for us to have a cohesive guideline that covers all applications because a) everyone knows what they're doing, b) endless rehashings of arguments won't need to happen, c) consistency is good for readers. I keep saying this all over the place recently, and nobody seems to get it: we are here for the readers. As Wilhelm said above, why should we translate from one language a reader probably doesn't know into a technical jargon the reader probably doesn't know, and then explain it? We are not here for our fellow heraldic hobbyists. We are here to provide clear encyclopedic information to, without sounding too fraught about it, the world. Or at least that portion of it which reads English. I am not saying we shouldn't use blazon. I am saying, as I have said all along, that if we are to do so it should by the nature of its complexity be cited to a reliable source. That is the very backbone of verifiability on Wikipedia, and I do not understand in the slightest your objection to it. → ROUX ₪ 12:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Whee! And I object to your saying that I keep saying that "blazon is somehow a language". I have taken pains to explain (several times!) that it is not "a language"; it is a specialized form of the English language (with special vocabulary and grammar) used in a specialized context. It is English. A kind of English. So as long as you keep saying that I am saying what I am not saying, we're a bit stuck, are we not? -- Evertype·✆ 12:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Then please stop using the word 'translation'. Translation is something that occurs between two languages. Blazon is not a language, nor is it a specialised form of English. It is an extremely limited vocabulary set for a very specific technical purpose. → ROUX ₪ 12:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps there is no way forward but to open this up to a Request for Comments, if you this is your view. Blazon is a specialized form of English. Whether it is restricted or not is irrelevant. It is not Portuguese. It is not French. It is not non-linguistic. It is language. It is not a language. I can translate "Ar ór torc siúlach" as "Or, a boar passant" and this is just as much translation as On gold, a walking boar. And both translations make use of my knowledge. Either ALL translation is Original Research, or none is. It is contrary to logic to try to say that one kind of linguistic transposition is "translation" and another is not. -- Evertype·✆ 13:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

(out) Then by all means do so. as I have tried, patiently, to explain: rendering something nice and simple from one language to a specialised technical jargon is pushing at the edges of acceptable, but life being as short as it is, I'm not going to bother explaining yet again why it's inherently unverifiable and original research. I've said it enough times, and your refusal to engage on anything but a few handpicked bits and pieces of what I have to say has frustrated me enough. I offered a compromise just to get this discussion over with. Apparently the only thing you will accept is "oh yeah, make up your own blazons from foreign languages anytime you like, and be damned with a foundational policy. I'll quote it here, in its entirety, to refresh your memory. I have bolded the part that is most applicable here.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references. Wikipedia is not the place to insert personal opinions, experiences, or arguments. Original ideas, interpretations, or research cannot be verified, and are thus inappropriate. Wikipedia is not a soapbox; an advertising platform; a vanity press; an experiment in anarchy or democracy; an indiscriminate collection of information; or a web directory. It is not a newspaper or a collection of source documents; these kinds of content should be contributed to the Wikimedia sister projects.

It really doesn't get any simpler than that. No source for your blazon? It doesn't belong in the article. → ROUX ₪ 13:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

(Unrelated point, not a reply). Roux, you good with the proposal as is (on a compromise basis)? I mean, I think you want "wherever possible" removed, which I'm not sure myself about. It's a proposed guideline, by which it has "there may be exceptions" built in. You happy to accept everything else? - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]}

I'm more or less beyond compromise at this point, as Evertype appears to have no interest in any solution that isn't "Let me write blazons wherever I like, even though they're completely unverifiable." I stand by the compromise I proposed earlier and that Evertype has studiously ignored. Since WP:V is a non-negotiable foundation policy, I suggest rewriting as follows:

1. A translation into standard English of the original/official description should be used as closely as possible in the article's main text to describe the award of arms. This translation must be cited to a reliable source per WP:V.
2. When a sourced translation is unavailable, a plain English description, such as could be made by any fluent English speaker upon viewing the coat of arms, must be used instead, per WP:NOR and WP:MTAA.
3. The original foreign-language wording of the official description should be directly linked to where possible in a reference and, optionally, reproduced in a footnote, but large extracts should not appear in the main text of the article, per WP:NONENG and WP:V.
4. Anglo-Norman Blazon should be used only when it adds to the accuracy or detail of a passage, and must be accompanied by a translation or description (as above), per WP:V and WP:NOR.
5. This blazon must be referenced with a reliable source, per WP:V. If no source is available, an Anglo-Norman blazon may be placed in a footnote prefaced with "Though the original grant of arms (in $language) was not written in the format that is used in most English-language heraldic practices, if it were to be written as such, one could use the following as a rough description. [insert A-N blazon here]"

Verifiability is the single most important content policy we have. I deplore the idea that we should throw it out the window because we happen to know some technical jargon that happens to be useful in limited cases. → ROUX ₪ 13:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I know how you feel. I've got a lot harder-lined too, if you read the whole thing again. Other than the "per" bits, which I think the whole guideline should have and not each bit (although I agree with the meaning), the only bit I actually think is unnecessary is that translations must have sources. Policy says this "Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors.", and in my opinion, "preferred" doesn't rule out translations made by Wikipedia editors. On this basis, 1) should be "should be" ... "where possible" instead of "must be" in order to better reflect Wikipedia policy. I don't actually think what you've said is much different to what I said. If we agree on that, then I think this version's up as the current suggestion, although I'd like to hear what WM says. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 14:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thing is, WP:V trumps WP:NONENG. But since I don't really feel like sticking my face in another blender, I'm not going to try and get the latter changed just now. I'll go with your amendment, but the translation should include a footnote about who translated it in lieu of a ref ot a reliable source. There needs to be some mechanism simpler than combing through diffs for a reader to challenge/question a translation; when one is sourced to an RS, then it's the problem of whoever wrote that. → ROUX ₪ 14:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit conflict]The reason I have not been able to propose improvements to this rule is that both of you keep insisting, baselessly in my view, that translation into Anglo-Norman Blazon is different from other translation. I asked "Why or why not?" on my Irish example below, and Roux refused to answer me. I translated that Irish into decent concise A-N, and I translated it into cumbersome "plain" English. How the heck can either of you say that both transpositions were not translation? And if ONE kind of translation is OK, and not called Original Research or Verifiability concerns, then why should the OTHER kind of translation not be OK? Yet that POV is now written through and through your new guideline: you have put WP:V and WP:NOR in nearly every line now, and that makes no linguistic sense at all. It is unfair of you to complain that I "studiously ignored" your previous proposal (as I have been attempting to make other arguments in the meantime rather than addressing that) and certainly inappropriate for you to close ranks and come up with a much more draconian set of "rules". Assume good faith? -- Evertype·✆ 14:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I said you studiously ignored it because your response to the proposal was "Please try to move to a different level of abstraction.". Whatever that means. I refused to answer your question in the same way you have continually refused to actually address the substance of anything that has been said to you, clinging to "but this translation is okay!" as your sole argument. The reason that one translation is fine is that plain simple English is something any reader can do for themselves. And again, your bias: plain English is only 'cumbersome' to those of us who are familiar with blazon. Yet again, we are writing for the public, the layman, the newbie. For all of whom A-N blazon is significantly cumbersome. Please, again, familiarise yourself with our single most important content policy, as you keep ignoring everything I have to say about it. → ROUX ₪ 14:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been a Wikipedia editor since 2004. Please don't suggest that I don't know anything about verifiability. That's not civil. -- Evertype·✆ 14:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, since you keep trying to get unverifiable material into articles, evidence suggests that you don't. Not me. And you keep ignoring everything I have to say, so I trust you'll understand that from this point forward I shall be doing the same to you, until you start demonstrating--e.g. by actually addressing points raised, such as the ones above regarding bias and writing for the layman--that you are actually paying attention to what is being said to you and not merely trying for some unknown reason to insert completely unverifiable information into what are supposed to be factual articles. That you fail to understand why this is a problem is puzzling--indeed, that you refer to a need for verifiable information as 'draconian' is downright distressing--but there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of point in continuing any discussion with you on the subject. → ROUX ₪ 15:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It is disingenuous for you to say that "I keep trying to get unverifiable material into articles", as I have been discussing things on a Talk page, not been putting things into articles. I have argued that translation is translation, and I disagree with your view that editors of the Wikipedia should refrain from translating blazons into Anglo-Norman Blazon unless they are copying it from some other source. I gave reasons for disagreeing with you. I disagree with your suggestion that this is a matter of "systemic bias" , because translating a Swedish blazon into English using the standard terminology of English blazon does not discriminate against Swedes or Swedish culture, or non-Swedish people interested in Swedish heraldry. I disagree with a low opinion of laymen in terms of this WikiProject. People interested in reading articles about heraldry are likely to be interested in heraldic terminology, and our articles ought to be able to make that terminology accessible. By "draconian' I referred to the proposed text which seemed to me to be extremely prejudicial against Anglo-Norman Blazon, and in particular I dispute, on reasonable linguistic grounds which I have endeavoured to express (however poorly) that suggest that translation of blazon into Anglo-Norman terminology and syntax is somehow original research when other kinds of translation are not. I believe your division of some translation as requiring verifiability and some translation as not to be an error, and for that reason I suggest that all of the "per"s in the proposal above to be going too far. And I believe that the result of the discussions here will be an impoverishing of the articles on heraldry, a disservice to students and fans of heraldry (who are as legitimate users of the Wikipedia as uninterested laymen) to have perfectly accurate A-N translations of (for instance) the Swedish blazons re-translated to get rid of the A-N. And I believe that this can of worms will just open again the next time some editors who don't believe that writing blazon is Original Research turn up. Unless you and Jarry are going to watchdog this policy assiduously, it goes too far. There should be a middle ground that is more accommodating. -- Evertype·✆ 15:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Still ignoring WP:V, I see. → ROUX ₪ 15:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying not to be mean-spirited here. Can you? Your point of view is that I am "ignoring WP:V. That's a blanket statement. Can you be concise and precise about your concern? -- Evertype·✆ 15:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

You haven't paid attention the last umpteen times I have explained precisely why verifiability is a concern, I therefore am not sanguine about you doing so now. I suggest you (re)read my comments. → ROUX ₪ 16:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

("You haven't paid attention" remains an uncivil comment.) I've read through the text yet again. I see you make an assertion: "Rendering your own blazon from a foreign language source is inherently unverifiable." I don't believe that it is any less verifiable than any other translation (since all translation is dependent upon the knowledge of the translator). Since we have a community of editors (who know about heraldry), why should a translation from a foreign-language source into Anglo-Norman Blazon be more particularly subject to concerns of verifiability than any other translation (particularly in view of the fact that we normally also provide a colour image)? I don't believe that your assertion of "inherent unverifiability" is as unassailable and self-evident as you claim it to be. -- Evertype·✆ 16:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I attempt a revision designed to allow editors to choose the register of their translations:

1. A translation into standard English of the original/official description could be used as closely as possible in the article's main text as so it is understandable. Additional description can be used if the intended meaning is not clear.
2. A translation into Anglo-Norman Blazon of the original/official description could be used where sufficiently accurate and reliable: Anglo-Norman Blazon should be used when it adds to the accuracy or detail of a passage, and should be accompanied by a translation or description (as above).
3. This blazon should be referenced with a reliable source that defines it wherever possible
4. The original foreign-language wording of the official description should be directly linked to where online in a reference and, optionally optimally, reproduced in a footnote. Large extracts should not appear in the main text of the article. If a source is offline, then the original text should be reproduced.
5. This is to provide simple descriptions accessible to the widest possible audience while avoiding original research and retaining the highest possible level of verifiability.

This avoids the problems I note below about re-writing all the Swedish pages, which are all very good as-is. -- Evertype·✆ 14:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

No worries about rewriting Swedish heraldry blazons. I can do that in a day, but I only want to do it once. ;-) Are we all keeping cool here? I don't want to have to sit you guys in opposite corners or anything. If I may, I'm no so sure either of you are refusing to hear each other so much as you genuinely disagree with each other. I'll comment more below (see next section after I have a chance to read more). Wilhelm_meis (talk) 07:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to see them re-written. There's nothing wrong with them. The translations from Swedish into the Anglo-Norman Blazon register of English seem to be quite correct. -- Evertype·✆ 12:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The applicability of Anglo-Norman

Wilhelm and I (as far as I know) feel it at least inappropriate to translate something presented in a foreign language as easily understandable - everyday, normal language - into Anglo-Norman, which isn't any of those things. For those involved in this question, it may be helpful to know which languages this actually covers. Of the nations we best cover in this area, as far as I know:

• German and Swedish use plaintext,
• English doesn't,
• Irish heraldic language, from what Evertype says I think, is not readily accessible by Irish speakers,
• French heraldry is largely not accessible - not quite as far as English, but there is specialist words, like sinople. Heraldic terminology is certainly some way away from simplicity. (I've always thought they're just obscure words, rather than non-existent one in common usage, but I don't know.)
• I've seen a few more countries, Croatia for example, which IIRC have used normal language.

It is my view that German, Swedish and Croatia etc. should not be put into Anglo-Norman, because as I've said above, it's not the level they were presented on. Irish and French present a different point. I think it would be fine to use A-N in these cases (subject to above conversation). The idea of this heading is effectively to add a clause to the above, which IMO should be:

Anglo-Norman blazons should not be used where the original uses terminology that can be considered usual usage among speakers of that language, lest it be presented in a manner not in keeping with the original.

What do we think? - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 20:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I showed above that the German plaintext isn't actually plain. It is marked for context (using the definite article), though far less so than English. As far as Irish goes, there are some peculiarities, and some uncommon vocabulary, but it is less opaque than Anglo-Norman Blazon can be. Apart from that, it's my view that a translator from German or Swedish should have the freedom to translate into whatever variety of English he prefers. -- Evertype·✆ 09:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself (which I tend to do until what I have said is actually addressed): blazon is not a language. It is a specific form of notation for a specific context, one that additionally conveys a sense of authority. To render non-English heraldry into that specific jargon is indistinguishable from rendering non-diatonic scale music into the Western form of musical notation, traditional Japanese dances into ballet notation, or indeed anything from one paradigm into another which it doesn't fit. So there's that problem. Secondly, blazon carries a sense of authority with it which we should avoid unless we are actually quoting an authoritative text. You suggested a disclaimer; bad idea, as nowhere on Wikipedia do we see such disclaimers for good reason. You also suggested using an asterisk to denote the non-authoritative nature of personally-developed blazons, something that is apparently a convention in linguistic circles; this too is a bad idea because it presents another barrier to entry for the layman. Thirdly, as I keep saying (and backing up, but you dismiss without actually addressing it), to render a blazon is pure original research. To use the example above, anyone can look at a coat of arms and see "a white horse on a red background" if they have even a rudimentary knowledge of English. No research there, because it is simple plain-English description of what anyone (who isn't colour blind, I suppose) can see. To render into blazon, again, can very easily miss details, add unnecessary information, or flat-out get it wrong. I point you again to the examples of the Canadian and UK coats of arms; presume for a moment they are of non-English speaking countries. You could easily render the maple leaves "...in base, argent three maple leaves gules" and it would be perfectly correct to the viewer. It would also be completely wrong. What safeguard do you have against that happening? None. Ditto the UK, where you could blazon it "Quarterly 1st and 4th England 2nd Scotland 3rd Ireland." Which would also be incorrect, as that is not the proper description. Fourthly, I will point out what Dr pda quote above from WP:NONENG: "English-language sources are preferable to sources in other languages so that readers can easily verify the content of the article. However, sources in other languages are acceptable where an English equivalent is not available. Where editors translate a direct quote, they should quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors." Which basically means we shouldn't be doing our own translations, especially in a field like heraldry where there are endless volumes of English-language information about an enormous variety of coats of arms, and those would be far more reliable than we are anyway. I would also point you to various comments by Wilhelm meis on the subject, including "As Jarry points out, we shouldn't translate it from one language our reader doesn't understand into another and then have to explain that," which is rather more concise than what I am saying. Look, I understand you like blazon. So do I. I think it's a fascinating way of encoding a visual thing, and what's astonishing is how (relatively) unchanged it has been for hundreds of years while every other language on the planet has mutated to be virtually unintelligible to a speaker from 500 years ago. But it is quite simply not appropriate to use it for heraldry that does not come from the tradition which birthed it. And finally, this is not meant to be rude, but I'd be concerned about you (or me, for that matter) rendering anything in blazon from a foreign language after the comment you left on my talkpage regarding whether or not your boar should be blazoned as "...langued gules." That neither of us are sure is pretty clear indication that neither of us is an expert in the field at the level of being able to write complex blazons, let alone write them coming from other languages. → ROUX ₪ 11:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

"There are endless volumes of English-language information about an enormous variety of coats of arms." I object. There are endless volumes of English-language information about an enormous variety of English coats of arms, but almost none about armory of the Continent and farther afield. Notice that there are few English-language sources at Swedish heraldry because few and scant English-language sources exist. German heraldry does not suffer quite as badly, but Icelandic heraldry gave me real problems for exactly this reason. One of the points I have been trying to make is that when dealing with arms from non-Anglophonic countries, we will be translating one way or the other (into modern English or Anglo-Norman). Wilhelm_meis (talk) 07:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Roux actually pushing that reason particularly. I agree with you, but I don't think Roux's statement has afected his reasoning anyway, if you see what I mean. I asked him about the use of foreign language sources on his talk, and it became clear English is preferred, but not essential, which happens to be policy anyway. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 08:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

On that last point I was reminded of a long discussion I had a year ago that I didn't want to dredge up just then because dinner had been set on the table. The rules for lions and some other are sometimes disputed. "It is not necessary to mention that a lion is 'armed and langued' in the blazon when tongue and claws are emblazoned in gules, but whenever any other colour is introduced for the purpose it is better that it should be specified" ((Fox-Davies & Brooke-Little p. 135); "The board, like the lion, is usually described as armed and langued, but this is not necessary when the tusks are represented in their own colour and when the tongue is gules. It will, however, be very frequently found that the tusks are or. The 'armed', however, does not include the hoofs, and if these are to be of any colour different from that of the animal, it must be blazoned 'unguled' of such and such a tincture" (ibid. p. 151). -- Evertype·✆ 12:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you Roux. Do you think there are any languages that use sufficiently different language to normal language (like English)? Or are you going to go with "none" (which seems to be the conclusion to the above paragraph)?

Just to clear something up: neither I nor anyone else is suggesting an Anglo-Norman blazon found in a reliable source shouldn't be used as long as it is reliable. I've never seen one for languages like German and Swedish. (Could you confirm, Roux, that these are written as to be perfectly understandable by ~100% of fthe population?) I've looked up more German arms, and they don't even use the definite article. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 11:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely if a reliable source for an A-N blazon can be found, it should be used, preferably in a footnote; as Wilhelm said, why translate from one language into a dense technical jargon which then needs to be explained? Show a plain English description, footnote to the (sourced) A-N blazon for those who are interested in such things, and be done with it. As for your other questions: my understanding is that heraldry deriving from the UK (and French, sort of) traditions is the only one that uses such a highly-specialised jargon. However, my French and German are poor, so I prefer to not batter myself over the head with them, and stick to my mother tongue. As for using the definite article, my experience of German has been that using it/not using it can be a measure of formality, but my lessons are more years in the past than I care to comfortably remember. But in general yes, I'd say that Swedish/German/etc blazons are generally written in a way that is much more accessible to native speakers than A-N. A friend of mine is Swedish, bears a coat of arms, and is quite interested in the subject. When he pops online this afternoon I'll pick his brain. → ROUX ₪ 11:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that the analogy of describing Japanese dance in Western ballet notation is applicable. Of course one could do it; depending on the flexibility of the ballet notation it would do a good or a bad job of fitting to the Japanese dance, that's all. Same goes for musical notation. And, indeed, the same goes for blazonry. I have to say it again. Here is a blazon in Irish:

• Ar ór torc siúlach gorm, na starrfhiacla agus na crúba airgidí; ar bharr gorm grian ghathach ar fud an sciathbhairr órga

I can translate this:

• Or a boar passant azure armed and unguled argent on a chief azure a sun rayonnant throughout Or.

Do I need an external reference for this translation? Why or why not? I can also translate it:

• "On gold a walking blue boar with white tusks and hooves together with a blue bar above on which is placed a golden sun with rays going to the edges".

Do I need an external reference for this translation? Why or why not?

In both cases I have used my knowledge of Irish and my knowledge of English (two varieties of it) in order to render the Irish text into a text which you can read. One of them, indeed, is technically superior and easier for you to read in the context of heraldry, since you understand heraldry and the particular use of English which we use conventionally to describe heraldic devices. (Do you dispute that? Because "Or a boar passant" sure is more meaningful to me in this context than "On [a] gold [shield] a walking blue boar".) It does not make sense to have different rules for different types of translation.

By your arguments I infer that you do favour Anglo-Norman Blazon to be used on the Wikipedia at all, unless it is a sourced citation from a formal grant of arms. If that is overstating your position, then I cannot fathom where you will permit un-referenced Anglo-Norman Blazon. But if it were your position, it seems to me that it will lead to an impoverishment rather than to an enrichment of the heraldic articles in the Wikipedia. -- Evertype·✆ 12:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

"One of them, indeed, is technically superior and easier for you to read in the context of heraldry, since you understand heraldry and the particular use of English which we use conventionally to describe heraldic devices" - and there we have it. Easier for me? More concise, maybe. But not easier for the readers of this project. Which is the whole point of this project: making information accessible to everyone. It is only 'technically superior' if one is at least a dedicated hobbyist in the field of heraldry, and we are writing for the layman here. And no, you haven't overstated my position; I firmly believe that if there is an official grant then that is what should be used, modulo translations into plain English from foreign-language sources.

"I don't believe that the analogy of describing Japanese dance in Western ballet notation is applicable." - that's unsurprising. Yet the analogy is quite clear; you are wanting to force a specific jargon usage that has been developed for the specific purpose of Anglo-Gallic heraldry (emphasis on the Anglo) onto heraldic traditions that have never used it, and resisting the idea of only using blazon when there is a source supporting it. I really don't know what it is about verifiability in the wikipedia context that you don't understand; nothing should be put on Wikipedia that is not referenceable to some external source. We should not be putting any original work/thought here, and developing a blazon is the very definition of doing so; you would have to synthesise information from a variety of sources in order to arrive at a blazon. → ROUX ₪ 12:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Please address my "Why or why not?"s above. -- Evertype·✆ 13:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Right after you address what I had to say above, and you have demonstrated that you understand how verifiability works. → ROUX ₪ 13:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

That is what my example shows. Evidently your argument is that Or a boar passant azure armed and unguled argent on a chief azure a sun rayonnant throughout Or. is unverifiable while On gold a walking blue boar with white tusks and hooves together with a blue bar above on which is placed a golden sun with rays going to the edges is verifiable. I believe that argument is false, because I made both of the translations of the Irish using the same brain with the same knowledge of Irish and English. I also believe that if there is an official grant then that is what should be used, but I believe that your suggestion that proscribing translations into heraldic English is inappropriate and ultimately unworkable. We have many articles now with perfectly good translations into Anglo-Norman Blazon on them; why should these be rewritten? The reason they contain Blazon already is that intelligent editors interested in heraldry went to the effort to provide those translations. Surely they were not fools, nor subject to "systemic bias" and surely this project will find similar editors with a similar inclination to translation in future. And at the end of the day readers of articles on heraldy can be expected to be interested enough in the topic to bother with Blazon if it appears there. One of the goals of this encyclopedia is to instruct. So long as the elements of blazonry are well-described in the Wikipedia (and the article on blazon surely needs work) laymen will have be able to access articles. -- Evertype·✆ 14:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

So I won't be addressing your questions, then? Alright. → ROUX ₪ 14:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I addressed your point, and you said that you would address mine after I had done so. It is illogical to treat one of the translations as original research and complain that it is not verifiable while treating the other translation differently. So I ask you again, on what basis do you make this distinction? You say it comes down to verifiabiity; if you know no Irish, both my Irish translations are just that: Translations by someone who understands Irish, and English (and with regard to one of the translations, the specialized English used to describe heraldry). -- Evertype·✆ 14:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

'An example of my concern: At Swedish_heraldry#Regional_heraldry we have nice Anglo-Norman Blazon used with the Swedish originals italicized in parentheses following, with footnotes to external sources. Is it really proposed to abolish those Anglo-Norman Blazons in favour of flat English translations? Because I think the article is excellent the way it is. -- Evertype·✆

Unless there is a source for the A-N blazons, yes they should be removed or at best follow the proposal I made above while holding my nose: put the translation (preferably sourced, but again, plain English requires much less interpretation than blazon) in the body of the article, and put the original research in a footnote. To be perfectly frank, I hate that solution but it seems to be the only way to compromise with your desire to insert original research into every article about non-Anglo-Gallic heraldry. → ROUX ₪ 12:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

You have not made the case that making a description in Anglo-Norman Blazon is Original Research. You have only made an unsupported assertion. I would certainly object to this project being hamstrung by the kind of proscription of heraldic vocabulary which you propose. -- Evertype·✆ 13:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

And yet again: what you refer to as 'heraldic vocabulary' is the jargon used in a specific type of heraldry. Please see Wikiproject Countering systemic bias. I have indeed made the case. That you haven't paid any attention to it is your problem, not mine. → ROUX ₪ 13:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I have seen the systemic bias material, and (being no newbie to the Wikipedia by the way) I don't find that it applies. Translating a Swedish blazon into English using the standard terminology of English blazon does not discriminate against Swedes or Swedish culture, or non-Swedish people interested in Swedish heraldry. I guess we're both thinking each other uncivil, because you likewise have paid no mind to what I as a linguist would call "common sense"; a set of words in one language can be rendered into another language in more than one way. English happens to have a weird and wonderful way of rendering blazon, but just because it is unique and has limitations does not mean that it ceases to be linguistic in nature, nor that a translation of a blazon from Language X into Anglo-Norman Blazon is not a genuine translation. I surely oppose your intent to revise heraldic articles on the wikipedia to expunge blazon from them, and Wilhelm's comments on "sanitization" seem to agree with me. But at this point I don't believe that four editors are managing this dispute very well. Certainly your descending into "your problem not mine" is not getting us anywhere. -- Evertype·✆ 14:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

No, as I have patiently tried to point out, the bias is yours. You keep saying things like 'proper heraldic language' and 'technically superior' and so on, when those things are only true for a specific system and manifestly not true for the rest. "Certainly your descending into "your problem not mine" is not getting us anywhere." - demonstrate to me that you actually pay attention to anything I say, rather than simply repeating over and over and over and over and over that you want to put blazon in without a source, and I'll be happy to redact it. Given that you have not yet done so anywhere on this page, I don't have very high hopes; you repeatedly ignore how WP:V works, you have repeatedly ignored examples that were you allowed your way would provide erroneous information to readers, and for some reason you are completely hung up on using a system that is not in use in foreign languages. Let me be as crystal clear as possible: facts on wikipedia must be sourced. You want to put in facts that are not sourced, and actively resist doing otherwise. These two positions are not reconcilable, and only one of them is right. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out which is which. → ROUX ₪ 14:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is the fact: Ar ór torc siúlach. You don't understand it. I'm an editor. I can say Or, a boar passant. That's a translation. I can also say On gold a walking boar. That's a translation. Neither translation is a "sourced fact". Both of them are in English (not Greek or some other language). Both are correct, as you yourself can verify (by now anyway). As an editor I made the translations. Are you saying that both must ignore WP:V, since there is no source for either? Are you saying that both must be WP:OR? But that means that ALL translation is WP:OR. I don't think that is what we are aiming for. -- Evertype·✆ 14:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The nature of Blazon

I will certainly write more on this later, after revisiting a few trusted sources, but I think we need to go ahead and try to get right to the heart of the matter. What is a blazon? I think the conception Roux has is that a blazon is a specific, unchangeable set of words - a code - that represents a fact - this particular code represents this particular person (organisation, country, whatever the case may be), while Evertype holds that a blazon is a description that is linguistic in its very nature and is therefor translatable and even subject to an indiscrete continuum of accuracy. I personally agree with the latter - some blazons can be considered more or less accurate than others, some more or less artfull than others. One thing to note about blazons: there may be in some cases more than one way to blazon a coat of arms (e.g. Is it a leopard lioné, a lion leopardé, or a lion rampant guardant?), but there is generally only one way to draw a blazon. The purpose of blazons, historically, was to have a description that would be drawn the same way every time, just like how the code on a CD tells any CD player how to make the same sound every time. As Evertype points out, an accurate description, whether in Anglo-Norman, modern English, Irish, Swedish, or some other language, should render the same image every time. If not, it is not a false statement of fact, just an inaccurate description like any other. Should inaccuracies be corrected on WP? Absolutely, and with all possible swiftness. Is it OR? No more than an inaccurate caption under a photo. It just needs to be corrected.

This brings us to the next question: Is Blazon a language? Yes and no. It is linguistic by its nature, though it is not per se a language (i.e. you couldn't effectively describe everyday events in Blazon) because it is a vestige of Anglo-Norman (i.e. Middle English). So while it does not in itself constitute an entire stand-alone language, it is the remnants of a viable language (and an English language at that!) just one we don't use in everyday life anymore. For this reason, I must differ with the argument that this vestigial Middle English language is essentially anything other than linguistic. Translation into Middle English is not different from translation into any other language, but like translation into any other language, it should be used sparingly on en.WP - not because it is different from any other language - but because it is difficult for the general reader to understand.

Is it OR? No. As I stated before, WP:OR is about content, not style. If it has been pointed out how, specifically, OR relates to blazons, I missed it and would humbly ask that it be answered here. Thank you for your patience for my long post. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 08:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. A couple of points. Firstly, I think Roux is saying (he can correct me here) that Anglo-Norman is fixed, but not necessarily the blazon of another language. I'd prefer it that way as well, but leading on to the second point, the actual proposal below doesn't require a source for blazons - it doesn't have to be official - and therefore despite pushing the idea that making a blazon may or may not be original research, for the purposes of the proposal as it is now, we've gone with "no". I can't see anything that disagrees with the proposal really. "Sparingly" is the way we've gone. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 08:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I would argue that there is no difference in the mutability of an Anglo-Norman blazon and that of any other language. I would say all are immutable, but many are malleable (i.e. no blazon, regardless of its language, can be substantially changed without following a specific protocol, but many of them may be subject to stylistic differences, such as star vs. mullet or "of the first" vs. listing tinctures, and all are translatable into any language including Middle English). I would also argue that there is very little, aside from usage, that is special about Anglo-Norman (i.e. Blazon with a big B). During the time in English heraldic history when the blazon enjoyed its primacy, Middle English (Anglo-Norman) was in widespread usage throughout most of Britain, particularly in matters of law. Prior to that, most coats of arms were not granted by royal decree but where simply assumed. In the early days of heraldry, many assumed coats of arms were not written down in any particular way, and one could make a strong argument that the image, not the blazon, was the essence of coat armory in those days. In the late Middle Ages, coats of arms were granted and we could now point to a coat of arms to provide us a codified blazon (which, of course, was in the language of the day, Middle English). The very special thing about Middle English in its use in heraldry is that it is the one part of our language that remains virtually unchanged to this day since the Middle Ages.

Moving on to your second point, though, I don't think any blazon, regardless of language, should exist on WP without a reference. To clarify this point for the record, I don't think OR is in any way tied to the use of a formal style or Middle English language; an unsubstantiated blazon in any language is OR. When I included the bit about OR in my original draft proposal, that was intended to proscribe blazons (in any language) that are written by wikipedians on the basis of an image without regard to the original blazon, which may be substantially different from the original blazon. I don't think we need references for Anglo-Norman blazons because they are special, we need references for any blazon. If an Anglo-Norman sight blazon is OR, a Modern English sight blazon is too. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 10:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

That's actually what I proposed as a compromise - that it requires a source, but not one that defines it. Am I wrong in thinking that this is what's covered? - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 11:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I think I misread that bit. I wasn't very clear in my reading of it. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 12:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Another point I'd like to raise, because I believe it lies at the heart of one of these arguments, is the question of whether it is the blazon or the image itself that is the essence of a coat of arms. There has been considerable debate over this question over the centuries, and there is no easy answer. I don't expect us to answer this question here, but I think we should identify this as an underlying question that we may be making some assumptions about when we ask other questions, like whether a blazon is OR. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 10:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

For quite some time it has been the blazon that has been considered authoritative, as it is immutable. Individual artistic depictions can change (cf the change in the Arms of Canada from the leaves being depicted vert to gules; the blazon did not change. See also your example of the lion's genitals on the Swedish heraldry page), but the blazon cannot change without an amendment to the warrant. For this reason alone must any A-N blazon be sourced properly. → ROUX ₪ 18:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

But why must only AN blazons be treated this way? Is the Swedish blazon of the Nordic Battle Group any less authoritative or any less definitive? And I suspect from the way you phrased your answer that you recognize that attitudes about the importance of the blazon have changed dramatically throughout history. I think I already pointed out that in the early days arms were assumed, often with scarcely a word written to define them, and in those days blazons were merely descriptive (not definitive) and the image was certainly given preference. So not all blazons are necessarily all that definitive. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 06:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Because the layman is likely to read something in archaic language as being definitive, and so if we are going to use such language it should be sourced. We are agreed on sight blazons being suboptimal, to put it mildly; this is merely the same thing. → ROUX ₪ 06:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe it is quite the same thing. I've made the concession that sight blazoning is not quite the same thing as writing a caption to a photo, but now you are asking me to say that translating a Swedish blazon into Anglo-Norman is the same thing as writing a sight blazon. It's not at all the same thing, because one is a translation and the other is an educated guess. I also object to your assumption about what the reader will think. We can't guess what all our readers will think. Clarity and consistency should be our guide, not making assumptions about our readers. I think a lot of readers are much less likely to read archaic language as definitive than they are to read archaic language as archaic and confusing. Again I ask you, very directly, do you believe that English blazons are any more definitive or authoritative than Swedish, German, Polish, Spanish or other blazons? Please support your answer. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 08:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

A not-vote

Guidelines represent consensus, not unanimity. Let's have support/oppose voting on this proposal. If you don't like it, oppose it. If you think it would help, support. I've just tried to avoid the acronyms in Roux's bit:

1. A translation into standard English of the original/official description should be used as closely as possible in the article's main text to describe the award of arms. It must be cited to a reliable source because of verifiability.
2. When a sourced translation is unavailable, a plain English description, such as could be made by any fluent English speaker upon viewing the coat of arms, must be used instead, so there is no original research and so that technical terms are explained.
3. The original foreign-language wording of the official description should be directly linked to where possible in a reference and, optionally, reproduced in a footnote (for verifiability). Large extracts should not appear in the main text of the article, because it is not English
4. Anglo-Norman Blazon should be used only when it adds to the accuracy or detail of a passage, and must be accompanied by a translation or description (as above), per policy about verifiability and no original research.
5. This blazon must be referenced with a reliable source, because of verifiability. If no source is available, an Anglo-Norman blazon may be placed in a footnote prefaced with "Though the original grant of arms (in $language) was not written in the format that is used in most English-language heraldic practices, if it were to be written as such, one could use the following as a rough description:" or words to that effect.

• Support reason encapsulated in discussion above. Such a coherent structure is a vast improvement, and it is in keeping with Wikipedia policy (which is an RfA pledge of mine). - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 15:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support - obvy. Though point 3, the foreign-language grant must be referenced, online or offline doesn't much matter. → ROUX ₪ 15:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree the source (be it a grant of arms, a role of arms, a heraldry book or other source) must be referenced. I think it must be quoted directly, in the source language, in a footnote unless linked to (and optimally it should be quoted directly in the footnote and linked to if available online, for maximum verifiability and reliability). Wilhelm_meis (talk) 10:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose as too hasty. Tempers are high, and I'm getting accused of wanting to "throw unverifiable information into any article" which is neither accurate nor civil. We do need good guidelines, but the ones proposed here make a number of assumptions which are controversial. The guidelines here attempt to be precise but some of it seems unconsidered. Rule 1 precludes the use of Anglo-Norman Blazon for translations from Irish, for instance, which will result in inconsistency with regard to Irish arms, which may be blazoned in English, Irish, or both; it would be inconsistent to have some of these with Anglo-Norman English and some without. Rule 2 I consider to be too restrictive, because while in many cases a verbose description could be helpful, editors should have the option to use A-N where appropriate, as has been done in this project hitherto (I oppose the proposal to rewrite articles to get rid of A-N text). Rule 3 is OK but I would change "optionally" to "optimally" because the original wording really should be included. The last sentence about large extracts is simply unnecessary. Rule 4 is now very confusing because there are no guidelines as to what "adds to the accuracy or detail" may mean. I would favour this Rule being moved up to under Rule 1 as an option (I dispute the unproved assertion that writing A-N is "original research"). Rule 5 is a way of trying to deal with all of this, but it seems very clumsy and the best thing to do would be to take a number of real examples (Nicholas Williams's arms for instance) and actually try out different options, rather than rushing this one through. More haste less speed. We should also ask the Project in general. -- Evertype·✆ 15:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The Project has (already) been asked at WT:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology#Style guideline for foreign blazon. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 16:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

True the project has already been invited to participate in this discussion, but I think it wouldn't hurt, once we reach a consensus among ourselves, to run the final proposal by the H&V project for a wider range of input. Even one other editor could have some very valuable contributions to make. We are getting a little ahead of ourselves, though. We still have a ways to go to come to an agreement even between the four of us. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 11:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Trying to do that. Yes, I think it should go through wider scrutiny, but the point of the proposal as-is is to find the common ground, and work from there. I think there's always going to be bits that someone doesn't particularly like, I can't see anything converging enough to believe we're going to agree (of if we do, to accept we agree). - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 11:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - I think a bit more discussion is warranted before another proposal is made. We need to find consensus on a few points first, and I don't think it's enough to compromise on certain points without first probing and clarifying why we hold a particular view. Specifically, 1) we need to settle the issue of OR, 2) we need to consider what exactly constitutes a blazon, and the interlingual implications of blazonry, 3) we need to settle the various disputes of the validity of translated blazons, the appropriateness of Blazon, and the accessibility of Blazon, 4) in the interest of countering systemic bias, I think it is worth considering regional differences in the formality of blazonry. As we have identified, English, Scottish, and Irish heraldry all have a roughly shared use of vestigial Middle English "Blazon", though Irish heraldry also uses Irish and each have some differences of convention (take a look at Star (heraldry) for some good examples). We have also identified that French heraldry similarly uses a very formalized register. This is not surprising, considering the close relationships of language and heraldic tradition between France and medieval England. Have a look at Heraldic Provinces of Europe and you will see that Gallo-British heraldry stands apart from Germanic, Latin and Slavic traditions (Warnstedt calls these German-Nordic, Latin, and East European, respectively). I think it would be an appropriate compromise to encourage the use of Anglo-Norman Blazon in French and Anglophonic (i.e. UK, US, Canadian, Australian, South African, etc.) heraldry articles while preferring Modern English translations of Germanic and other blazons, as this more closely represents their respective native styles. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 09:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

A couple points I wanted to make earlier but forgot: German blazons do use a more formal register than colloquial German, but the vast majority of them are quite understandable to nearly all native speakers of German. That is to say, most Germans presented with an image would likely come up with a number of other ways to describe the image, but the same Germans presented with the blazon would mostly draw the same image. Swedish blazons are perhaps an even more interesting example because they are written very much the same way the average Swede would describe the image. I think we could fairly put Swedish blazons at one end of the spectrum (the least formalized) and English blazons at the other. Notably, many others such as Danish and Finnish blazons would range very near German and Swedish in this respect. I wish I new more about Russian/Slavic heraldry and blazonry, but I know very little, particularly about their blazonry. Anybody know somebody who can shed some light on this? Can we get a Polish heraldry buff in here? Wilhelm_meis (talk) 09:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Most of your comment here does not relate to the proposal in particular (that sounds more aggressive than it is, sorry). It's considered ground work. For example, the big debate (and I support having that debate) about when A-N blazon may be allowable as a translation is additional to the proposal, since the proposal is about allowing blazons when they "add to the accuracy or detail of a passage". The question about appropriateness is an additional criterion as an extra to those proposed. Because it is being debated, I thought it helpful to consolidate what has already been discussed. It doesn't mean it can't be added to. Of the four points you have raised that need to be settled, it is my considered opinion that: 1) has been discussed as much as it can and it is covered in the proposal that they could be used, but sparingly; 2)a separate debate, which can happen after, I didn't want to introduce too many contentious issues; 3) as in the first half of this paragraph; 4) part of 3). I just think we're going to be here forever if we try and do everything at once, and get bogged down in details. By concentrating on what we can reach agreement on now, we may just be able to progress. Is there anything you disagree with, or is it that you want more things defined, more laid out? Might be worth moving this to a separate section like "Does the proposal cover enough things?" or something. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 11:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

[In a decidedly jocular tone] We have a hell of a lot of proposals to discuss, since we have each taken turns at proposing! I really don't mean that to come across with any contention. What I am much more interested in than discussing any one proposal is simply consensus building. I think we have a few issues to discuss individually, and let the style guide write itself. To that end, I might try to seed a few different discussions in subsections below. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 12:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. Call it "on hold" then. I think we're close to deciding the applicability issue, if not the rest. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 12:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Building a consensus

We may not be all that far from reaching consensus on some important points. I think we have demonstrated that this small group can cover a lot ground very quickly if we can compartmentalize our discussion to avoiding letting the whole discussion get hung up on sticking points. I'd like to break it up to one point at a time and get everyone's input on all of these. One other point (and a very valid one, I think) that was raised is that we are writing a style guide, not WP policy, and it is our place to make recommendations but not to declare musts. Thanks again to all of you for helping write this style guide. It would be an admittedly poor guide if I wrote it alone! Wilhelm_meis (talk) 13:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

First point: Standard Modern English or Anglo-Norman?

I won't bore you by restating the arguments. My proposed solution is to recommend an Anglo-Norman (Middle English or "Frenglish") Blazon for any coat of arms in the Gallo-British tradition (which, by extension, includes members and former members of the British Commonwealth and importantly also includes France) while recommending a standard Modern English translation of other blazons. This is for considerations of appropriateness of tone and countering systemic bias. The point of emphasis is that any blazon included in WP's articles should be a translation of a published blazon (of any language) and not a sight blazon of an image without regard to the original blazon. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 13:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm worried that, and this isn't just foreign, we'd have Anglo-Norman blazons with no explainations. I agree with the "Gallo-British tradition", but even those inside it should explain blazons. Blazons yes, but it can't be the only thing in an article that gives an idea to a reader what a coat of arms looks like. It is my opinion that if someone without heraldic knowlege can't understand it what the hell it's on about, then simple steps should be taken to ensure they can. Range of when/not is good though. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 15:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Should only be recommended where there is a reliable source which has published the AN blazon, per your other comments. → ROUX ₪ 18:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

So do you object to my esception for French then? If so, please support your objection. Maybe I should also point out that this part has more to do with style than anything and really nothing to do with verifiability (which is addressed below). Wilhelm_meis (talk) 06:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I do, for the same reason I object to the use of AN blazon for any COA that doesn't have an AN blazon in a reliable source describing it. A sight description in plain English, as I have said before, avoids any possibility of getting it wrong, while simultaneously avoiding the appearance of authority where none exists. → ROUX ₪ 06:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I support the position that an editor should be free to choose to translate a foreign blazon into Anglo-Norman terminology if he prefers to. I don't accept the view that the heraldry articles should avoid Anglo-Norman terminology because an encyclopaedia is there to educate. If an Anglo-Norman blazon requires a plain-text clarification in parentheses following, well, fine. I object to Roux's position that Anglo-Norman terminology can only be used in the Wikipedia if it comes from an external published source. This introduces strictures on translations which are unheard of anywhere else on the Wikipedia. To address Jarry's concern, what is the problem with following Anglo-Norman Blazon with an explanation? I could support that. In that case, why make an artificial distinction between translation from languages "outside" the Gallo-British tradition, and those within it? Linguistically, the Irish language is quite different from English, Anglo-Norman, and French. Yet translation of an Irish blazon to English is always done in Anglo-Norman. We have seen on the articles about Swedish heraldry that it is not problematic to translate from Swedish into Anglo-Norman. Why should it be avoided, artificially? Should not the Wikipedia educate? If so, then what we need to do is come up with a set of simple conventions for presentation of heraldic blazon, of English paraphrases in parentheses, and of footnoting the original foreign citation. Surely this covers all the bases. -- Evertype·✆ 08:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

My thought on this one, Evertype, is that as a matter of using appropriate style, it may be better to stick with Anglo-Norman blazons for Gallo-British heraldry, and not for Germanic heraldry which uses a more informal style. It's not to say that editors must/can't do anything any certain way, just that it's preferred a certain way for consistency of style. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 08:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it is easier if we have one set of conventions for all translation. There may be a spectrum of formality from English to Irish to German to Swedish. There's no particular value in attempting to capture formality or informality in translation, I think. So it is easiest (and useful as I argue below under Jargon to encourage as a matter of course both translation into Anglo-Norman and paraphrase into plain English. -- Evertype·✆ 08:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I have edited the paragraph describing Nicholas Williams's arms in light of my proposal above (foreign original in footnote, Anglo-Norman translation in italics, plain text paraphrase in ('parentheses with single quotes'). -- Evertype·✆ 08:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

What part of 'plain English description of the arms can't get it wrong but A-N blazon can ' is unclear to you? → ROUX ₪ 08:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to ask you to support your indefensible assertion that "plain English description of the arms can't get it wrong but A-N blazon can". This is factually false. Look at the Nordic Battle Group. A wikipedian sight blazoning could just as easily say "a gelded white lion" or even (I shudder to think of it) "a white lioness" as he could "a gelded lion rampant argent", and he would be just as wrong. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 08:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

(I'd be pretty happy of Roux would climb down off the Horse of Superiority and watch the way he talks to his fellow editors.) I agree, Wilhelm, with your assessment of the incorrectness of Roux's assertion here. This Wikiproject benefits from the expertise of its many editors just as any other Wikiproject does. A fair bit of translation goes on in other projects I'm involved with (Writing Systems for instance) and editors correct mistakes. -- Evertype·✆ 08:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Second point: Verifiability and OR

To avoid original research and comply with verifiability, all blazons (whether rendered in Anglo-Norman Blazon or standard Modern English) need to be supported by a reference to a reliable source. It is always recommended that a foreign-language source blazon should be reproduced verbatim in a footnote, and optimally, links to online sources should also be made available where possible. Blazons on WP articles, whether in Anglo-Norman Blazon or standard Modern English, should be translations of a published blazon (in any language) and not a sight blazon of an image without regard to the original blazon. I think I just repeated myself. Anyway, I still don't see how WP:OR applies to Anglo-Norman blazons any more than any other, but I am willing to concede the point on sight blazons (i.e. to say that sight blazons are not quite the same as photo captions in terms of OR and V). Wilhelm_meis (talk) 13:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll go with it. This is an automatic part of Wikipedia (Everything must have reliable sources) but saying it again can't hurt. Just to confirm another reason why I think A-N blazons should be explained is to cover this. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 15:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)r

Agreed that sight blazons are bad. Given other points you have made with regards to precisely how to describe lions (e.g.), any A-N blazon should also be sourced to the original publication or a reliable source. Standard modern English describes (again, lions for example) far better when the original specific text is not known. → ROUX ₪ 18:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, as stated elsewhere, I really don't see what Anglo-Norman blazons have that Swedish, Polish, Spanish or other blazons don't, in terms of verifiability. The bottom line is that all blazons must have verifiability, per WP:V. That is to say the blazon, regardless of its language, needs verifiability; the language/style of a blazon is a matter of style (and the topic of this whole discussion). This is just a style guide and has little/nothing to do with verifiability. What is germane to this discussion is how to present the elements of verifiability in a way that is consistent. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 06:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Wilhelm that a foreign-language blazon should always be reproduced verbatim in a footnote. I agree that the blazon given should be a translation of the original, published blazon. I do not agree that translations must be into "plain English"; I think they should be made into the language of heraldry in the English language (that is, Anglo-Norman Blazon). Note that this does not mean the same thing as the language of English heraldry although there is overlap. I think that the Wikipedia articles will all be richer if we cover all the bases. Ar ór torc siúlach gorm, "Or, a boar passant azure" ('On a gold shield, a walking blue boar'). This formula works for all translations from all languages that make use of European heraldic visual vocabulary. (Japanese heraldry] is does not share features such as the escutcheon or crest, so it would not fit into this structure.) -- Evertype·✆ 08:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Third point: Jargon

In the interest of making technical articles accessible and avoiding/explaining jargon, Middle English (Anglo-Norman) blazons should be used only where geographically/linguistically appropriate (i.e. for arms originating in the Gallo-British heraldic tradition) or where otherwise useful. While we all share a personal fondness for the concise and artful nature of Anglo-Norman blazonry, it should be used sparingly and with due clarity to foster understanding and interest among the general readership. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 13:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you define 'otherwise useful'? A-N blazons should only be used where there is a source for them, guaranteeing factual accuracy. → ROUX ₪ 18:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I cannot define "otherwise useful". That is up to the editors to decide. Remember, we are not writing definitive policy, just a style guide. Its purpose is to give editors something to go by for purposes of clarity and cohesiveness, not to introduce another set of rules to be followed. There is plenty of wikilawyering that goes on on WP's talk pages anyway without another set of Rules. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 06:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikilawyering is precisely what I'm concerned about. "But it's useful!" "How?" "It's useful!". Etc. → ROUX ₪ 07:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Not dissimilar to the passive-aggressive rhetorical game you've been playing, with respect, Roux! "Translation into plain English or into Anglo-Norman Blazon is still translation." "Writing Anglo-Norman Blazon is Original Research!" "How does one kind of translation differ from the other?" "I don't have to answer since you never listen to anything I say!" All right. Let's move on, please. You don't have the monopoly on rightness when it comes to interpreting usefulness and the principles of the Wikipedia. -- Evertype·✆ 08:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Passive aggressive? Get bent. You all can write your wonderfully OR and unverifiable descriptions as much as you like. I'm done with attempting to discuss this with you, and I shall continue to do this really weird thing where I use sources instead of making things up on my own. Goodbye. → ROUX ₪ 08:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Wilhelm, the pattern I showed above (giving the original foreign blazon, an Anglo-Norman translation, and an plain English explanation where needed) will be "useful" if consistently applied throughout our articles. It will make translations immediately useful to heraldic experts consulting the Wikipedia (who may find plain-text English explanations only to be off-putting or unsatisfactory), as well as useful to those readers who are eager to learn about heraldry. And those readers who fall in the middle, who don't care one way or another, can just read the plain-text English explanations. The answer to Roux's question is simple. Jargon or not, Anglo-Norman terminology is the language of heraldry in the English language, and so it is always useful to both expert and student. The proposal to try to avoid translations into Anglo-Norman Blazon is aimed at the wrong set of users. Our pages should not be unuseful to experts and students of heraldry, and so should always make use of Anglo-Norman Blazon. Providing additional plain-text English explanations will then be a great service to lay readers who are not interested in the rich language of heraldry in English. -- Evertype·✆ 08:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

[ec] I agree that consistent trilingualism (Anglo-Norman, (Modern English), {fn} source language) may be the most thorough way to cover all bases, but I also think it's asking a lot of our editors. I also think there is some value in taking an approach that gives due consideration to the linguistic style of the source language. I understand your frustration with the above talk, but I respectfully remind you to avoid engaging in terse argument. Sadly, I am starting doubt whether Roux will offer any more useful contributions to this discussion, as he seems to be intensifying his desperate grasp on his POV, but we need to retain our collegial tone and explain our own views rather than attacking his. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 08:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad that you think that consistent trilingualism is a way to deal with this… impasse. For what it is worth, I have struck out my criticism above, though I share your doubts. If an editor does not feel comfortable adding an Anglo-Norman translation, perhaps he could just give his English paraphrase. A later editor might add the Anglo-Norman translation (provided always that it is a translation of the foreign original' and not a sight-translation). The Guideline, then, should specify the typical format for the trilingual presentation. -- Evertype·✆ 09:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I have always maintained that the trilingual approach is a viable option, just not that it is necessarily the best option. Indeed it is sad that our discussion has run aground at this point. If you please, I would still be willing to discuss the Blazon issue to see if we can get at the heart of what has been vexing Roux. He may need to take a wikibreak and blow off some steam for a while (I don't think this discussion is his only wikifrustration right now), and if this is the case, I would be willing to table the discussion for a few days. I really do value his input, even if I just can't reconcile myself to his view of one particular issue. A little wikibreak would also give us all time to return to our trusted sources and reflect on the issues raised here. Should we agree to take a break and come back to it this weekend? Wilhelm_meis (talk) 11:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Roux's gone for at least a long time, if not ad infitum. (I do understand his position on this issue, in fact I support it, except I'm just been more open to compromise.) Yes, I'll take a break, since I've got a whole five volume of Norfolk History to adapt to Wikipedia, not to mention other things. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 11:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Resuming talks

I would like to resume this discussion by the end of this week, hopefully with a few more added voices. I have taken the liberty of inviting a few other members of the project with whom I have crossed paths at least once in the past, but I have no idea how any of them are likely to side on any of the various points raised here. My only hope is that another round of vigorous discussion may yield a consensus reflective of the project and produce a useful style guide. My thanks go out to each of you who participated in prior discussions, and to each of you who will join in the next round. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 12:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

In Norwegian blazon the language is precise and simple. It uses regular names for colours and placements. I would prefer to have the original language blazon included espescially since it contrasts the English. I would prefer we use the proper English form of blazoning when translating a non-English blazon. By the way, I do not agree that non-English blazons are foreign :) Inge (talk) 11:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you clarify a bit? "original language blazon" - are we talking putting Norwegian in articles?; "proper English form" - common English or Anglo-Norman blazon (gules, azure etc. )? - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 11:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Inge, do you mean that if the blazon is (to use a Swedish example) I fält av guld et rött kors, i korsmitten belagt med en krona av guld., you would like (1) to see the Norwegian blazon in the article (perhaps in a footnote) and to have it translated into "the proper English form" (Anglo-Norman blazon) as "Or, upon a cross gules, a crown Or" rather than have it translated literally as "In a field of gold a red cross, in the middle of the cross set with a crown of gold"? -- Evertype·✆ 13:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, for purposes of this discussion "foreign" is just shorthand for blazons originally written in a language other than Anglo-Norman. Sorry to imply that non-English is necessarily "foreign" to all users. Naturally, I understand that a Norwegian blazon is not foreign to a Norwegian. I think our goal here should be to facilitate a less Anglocentric view of heraldry in our articles by providing a clear, easy way for our editors to include non-English sources. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 03:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Evertype, I would prefer your first suggestion.Inge (talk) 13:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Begin from the source

I just read the whole long discussion. I'm sorry to see one valuable contributor leave the project (not forever, I hope) as a result, but I must say that Evertype's arguments are more convincing. There's a difference between a "sight blazon" which, I think everybody here agree, is orginal research, and a translation from a blazon in one language, taken from a reliable source, into an AN Blazon. On the other hand, I don't agree with Evertype's view that such a translation would always be appropriate. Firstly, quoting Roux, Blazon carries an air of officiality or definitiveness. If we do translate to AN Blazon, we should take more care than in the case of other translations, to explain that this is a unofficial translation made by Wikipedia. Secondly, as Wilhelm points out, such a translation might be pretty straightforward within the area of Gallo-British heraldic tradition. It may be less the case for translating Germanic or Scandinavian blazons and even less for Polish or Hungarian ones.

Abdank

And to answer Wilhelm's question about Polish blazons; there are two cases here. In traditional Polish heraldry, there is a special blazon jargon; less structured and easier to understand for a layman than ANB, but still reqiures some specialist knowledge to use it. Some terms, like pas (fess) or słup (pale) are easy to translate, but some subordinaries are unique to Polish heraldry and have no obvious Anglo-Norman equivalents. Example: how would you blazon the arms of the Abdank clan in ANB? In Polish, it's W polu czerwonym łękawica srebrna. You could say, Gules a łękawica Argent, but that of course would sound terrible and you'd have explain that łękawica is the W-shaped subordinary. Or you could try a more descriptive blazon, like Gules chevrons couped reversed coupled Argent, but that might cross the line between translation and OR.

Another case is modern civic heraldry, of which the Wrocław CoA above is an example. Modern town or regional arms are defined by legal texts which use plain, technical descriptions rather than traditional blazons. It would make no sense to render those into ANB either.

And finally, another shot a guideline. I propose an approach where you start by looking at what kind of source you have:

1. Your source contains only an image of a coat of arms.
   • You may describe the arms in plain English. Provide the source in a footnote.
   • Do not try to reconstruct a blazon (a "sight blazon") as that would constitute original research.
2. Your source contains a plain English description of a coat of arms.
   • Quote or paraphrase the description in plain English. Provide the source in a footnote.
   • Do not try to reconstruct a blazon as that would constitute original research.
3. Your source contains an Anglo-Norman blazon of a coat of arms.
   • Quote the blazon as it is in the source. Provide the source in a footnote.
   • Explain the blazon in plain English.
4. Your source contains a foreign language description of a coat of arms in layman's terms.
   • Translate the description into plain English. Provide the original text and its source in a footnote. You may also quote the original text in the main text of the article.
   • Do not try to reconstruct an Anglo-Norman blazon as that would constitute original research.
5. Your source contains a foreign language blazon of a coat of arms, in terms typically used in the given country's heraldic tradition.
   • You may translate it into an Anglo-Norman blazon. This may be particularly appropriate when dealing with a country within Gallo-British heraldic tradition (Ireland, France, etc.). Provide the original text and its source in a footnote and note that the translation is unofficial and made by Wikipedia. You may also quote the original text in the main text of the article. Explain the blazon in plain English.
   • Alternatively, you may translate or paraphrase the blazon in plain English. This may be more appropriate when dealing with a country outside Gallo-British heraldic tradition. Provide the original text and its source in a footnote. You may also quote the original text in the main text of the article.

Here's an example of what I mean in point 5.

The coat of arms of Evertype consists of a golden shield emblazoned with a walking blue boar with white tusks and hooves. In a blue bar in the upper part of the shield, it shows a golden sun with rays going to the edges.

The official blazon of the arms was originally granted in Irish. It may be rendered into English as follows:

Or a boar passant azure armed and unguled argent on a chief azure a sun rayonnant throughout Or.

The history of the coat of arms dates back to the times when...

References

— Kpalion^(talk) 12:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

It is late here, and I am for bed, but Wikipedia is a medium, a venue, not an agent. Wikipedia cannot make translations. -- Evertype·✆ 00:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is a whole separate topic and this page may not be the best place to discuss it. I looked at our policies about Non-English sources and Self-references to avoid, and they don't really say how to write that a particular translation is made in-house and not taken from an external source. For me, writing "Translated by Wikipedia" seems the best solution, as Wikipedia is not just a medium; it's also a community of contributors, some of them anonymous, who write articles and can also make translations. An in-house translation on Wikipedia, like anyhting else, is a collaborative effort. Yes, you could write, "Translated by Wikipedia contributors", but "Translated by Wikipedia" means the same and is shorter. — Kpalion^(talk) 07:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't really get what Evertype's saying, but I agree with the principles outlined by Kpalion, except I'm not happy that we're allowing passages of foreign text in articles. Particular words like "łękawica" perhaps, but not an entire blazon. I haven't got time now to explain, but I hope you'll see where [I think] the line is/should be.- Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 07:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I also think that it would be better to put the original text in a footnote rather than in the main text, but I didn't want to make the guideline too restrictive. We might want to leave some room for manoeuvre to individual editors who will decide on a case-by-case basis what is best for the article. If the original blazon is not very long, it might not hurt in the main text. Anyway, if consensus here is that the original text can only be in a footnote, I'll be happy to strike it out. — Kpalion^(talk) 08:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure about the others, but I've always thought the fact things are guidelines need not be loose themselves, because the fact they are guidelines means there are exceptions. The rules themselves can be strict, because as a guideline, there will be exceptions. We'll see. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 08:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're right. — Kpalion^(talk) 09:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I know what Evertype's saying, but it is my understanding that translations do not specificiallly need sources that confirm the translation, because you can have Englsih text, with a foreign source that says what the English does, just in another language - not really a translation. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 08:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but what you describe – writing an article in English and citing a non-English source – is different from taking a direct quote from a non-English source and translating it. In the latter case, I think you need to provide the source of the translation in addition to the source of the original quote. And in our discussion, this distinction is particularly important; if you translate a foreign blazon into ANB, it must be a translation of a direct quote from the external source. You could paraphrase it, but not in ANB. — Kpalion^(talk) 09:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying that "Wikipedia" is not a person, and "Translated by Wikipedia" is unacceptable text. -- Evertype·✆ 10:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we're going to need some examples, since it does depend what you say, and how you say it. Here are some:

• Original language in source: Niedersachsen fuehrt als Wappen das weisse Ross im roten Felde
• You say: "The coat of arms of Lower Saxony shows a red field with a white horse.{ref}" Fine.
• You say: "Officially, the coat of arms of Lower Saxony is "A white horse in a red field.{ref}" I'm fine with that.

What do you think? This is for those outside the Gallo-British tradition(ish) point. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 09:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Where's "Gules, a horse argent"? That's what Inge supported (as I do). It is not inappropriate to translate into Anglo-Norman. Oddly in Kpalion's box above, he gives the English (Anglo-Norman) translation as "official". I don't like the word "official"; a Grant of Arms may be formal, but is it official? In any case, a grant of Arms in Ireland may be in Irish only, or in English only, or both. So the text will need to make clear whether the Anglo-Norman blazon is Granted or not. -- Evertype·✆ 10:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You right, the word "official" was misplaced in my example. What I meant was an unofficial translation of an official original blazon. I corrected it now (underlined). — Kpalion^(talk) 11:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. What are we doing worrying about "official" translations and "unofficial" translations? -- Evertype·✆ 13:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Lie you said, a CoA may be granted in Ireland with a blazon in Irish, English or both. In the latter case, you have two equally official variants of a blazon. But if the original document contained only a blazon in Irish and you translated it into English, then what you get is an (unofficial) translation of an (official) Irish blazon. Perhaps there's a difference in what we undestand by "official". To me, "official" means "defined in a legal document that was issued by competent authority". — Kpalion^(talk) 13:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Kpalion's list above, I don't understand why there has to be a plain-text description of the arms before a translated blazon. That's as much a "sight description" as a "sight blazon" would be. If one is OR, so is the other. I argued about Roux's position earlier: It's true that "I now pronounce you man and wife" is a phrase that is "official" and "meaningful" in a certain context—but that doesn't mean that only certain people with certain jobs can utter the phrase. We need to make it clear somehow when Anglo-Norman blazon is "official" (i.e. comes from a Grant of Arms) but I don't understand why there should be other strictures upon its use, so long as it's clear what the usage is. -- Evertype·✆ 10:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Evertype, I take it by sight description you mean Kpalion's #1(a). I would tend to agree. There is perhaps a fine line between providing an ALT text of an image in the form of a general description of an heraldic image and creating a plain-English sight blazon (sight description as you call it), but it is an important distinction. To me, the line is drawn at attributing a blazon/description to a person/organization/government entity. We could show an example of a chevron with a description such as Argent, a chevron gules, but if we are going to say "the arms of [someone] are Argent, a chevron gules," we need a source for it, a source that includes a blazon in some language.

Kpalion, I also would like to point out that I find a lot of overlap between your #4 and #5, such as Swedish blazons, where the "terms typically used in the given country's heraldic tradition" are "in layman's terms". What then? This is why I found it a potentially useful convention to use Anglo-Norman for blazons of the Gallo-British tradition and plain Modern English for blazons of other (particularly German-Nordic) traditions. I would also like to know your thoughts on including non-English source blazons in a footnote, but never more than a word or phrase in the main text of the article. It seems the acceptable practice, in my opinion, and I wonder if there is consensus behind it. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 10:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there really a potential problem with Swedish blazons? You may either treat one as plain text, in which case it falls under point 4 and you paraphrase it in plain English. Or you treat it as a blazon outside Gallo-British tradition and then it falls under point 5.2, which also tells you to paraphrase it in plain English. But if you really, really want to render it into an ANB, the proposed guideline doesn't stop from doing that.

As for including non-English source blazons in a footnote, but never more than a word or phrase in the main text – that's perfectly fine for me. — Kpalion^(talk) 11:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that for me. I think rather than stating #5 "in terms typically used in the given country's heraldic tradition," perhaps something like "in a formal, technical style" or "in special terms reserved to heraldic usage" would more precisely convey what is meant. That said, I agree that it is proper for us to provide a guide that, while clearly stated, allows the editors some flexibility to decide for themselves how best to apply it to any given situation. I would also like a little clarification of #4(b), though. It seems to me that any blazon (Anglo-Norman or otherwise) translated from a reliably sourced blazon (formal or otherwise) is not OR, unless you mean reconstructing a blazon from a loose description that may be inaccurate or incomplete (in which case we also have a WP:RS problem). I think translating an informally stated blazon (such as any blazon in the Nordic tradition) into Anglo-Norman may present some translation problems or at worst constitute affectation, but not OR. Either way, I just think it may not hurt to give just a little more clarification to each point for the sake of editors who lack the benefit(?) of having first followed this whole discussion. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 03:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Sight blazon vs sight description

This is mostly in response to Evertype. Let's consider a computer programming analogy; it may seem far-fetched, but after all, a blazon is an algorithm written in special purpose-built langauge with limited vocabulary and well-structured syntax.
So, imagine you are writing about a computer program. You can run it and see the final results, but you don't know the source code. You can quite safely write in plain English what the program produces. But you can't say how it works. You may try to write you own source code and compile it to make a program that gives the same results – but it won't be the same source code as in the original program. The difference between a sight description and a sight blazon is the difference between describing what a program produces and a making guesses about the source code.
Now imagine you know the source code and it's written in, say, C++. You want to explain not only what the program does, but also how it works, to a fellow programmer who only knows Pascal. You can tell him in plain English what the algorithm is. You may also try to rewrite the source code in Pascal. For some simple programs this may be straightforward and easy. But it may be also difficult because C++ is an object-oriented language and Pascal is a procedural language – they just don't work exactly the same. You can still write a program in Pascal that will give the same results as the one in C++, but it will be a different algorithm and won't help your colleague understand how the original program works. You may have similar problems translating a blazon from a very different heraldic tradition into ANB.
I hope that's clearer now. If I only made it muddier, then scratch that. — Kpalion^(talk) 12:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Moving forward

I would like to get everyone's thoughts on the following, as an addendum to WP:Blazon (at Foreign-language blazons). This is broadly similar to Kpalion's final points above, with some differences. I left out the first few points because they are already addressed at WP:Blazon, and I think for now we should focus on foreign-language blazons and then move any remaining discussion to WT:Blazon once we come to a conclusion on where to go with this section. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 13:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• This guide should be used in a manner consistent with other guides and policies, particularly, with respect to the Non-English sources (WP:NONENG) policy:

English-language sources are preferable to sources in other languages so that readers can easily verify the content of the article. However, sources in other languages are acceptable where an English equivalent is not available. Where editors translate a direct quote, they should quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors.

• If your source contains a non-English blazon in a formal style or technical register reserved to heraldry:
  • You may translate it into an Anglo-Norman blazon. This may be particularly appropriate when dealing with a blazon within Gallo-British heraldic tradition (such as Irish or French).
  • An English blazon appearing in a reliable source is preferred over a blazon translated by a Wikipedia editor, per WP:NONENG.
  • Alternatively, you may translate a non-English blazon into plain English. This may be appropriate for blazons outside the Gallo-British heraldic tradition (such as Scandinavian blazons). *[added text]

• If your source contains a non-English description of a coat of arms in layman's terms:
  • You may translate the description into plain English. This may be appropriate for blazons outside the Gallo-British heraldic tradition (such as Scandinavian blazons). [stated above]
  • Alternatively, a complete and reliable blazon written in an informal style may be translated into an Anglo-Norman blazon.

• Provide the original (non-English) text and its source in a footnote for optimal verifiability.
• Non-English blazons and passages longer than a word or phrase should not appear in the main text of the article.

When a non-English term is provided in the main text of the article, it should be clarified as necessary in plain English.

• Formal blazons should not be constructed from loose descriptions or incomplete blazons, as this may violate the No original research policy and may result in an inaccurate blazon.

Only a complete and reliable blazon should be translated into an Anglo-Norman blazon. Translating into Anglo-Norman should never be used to achieve an affectation of authority not supported by reliable sources.

Comments

• Support as nominator. I believe these points are fairly straight-forward and non-controversial, and provide us a clear path forward. If consensus is behind including these points at WP:Blazon, I suggest we go ahead and move our discussion to that talk page. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 13:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support. It looks perfect for me. I only made a few stylistic changes; I hope you don't mind. — Kpalion^(talk) 17:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
• I agree with almost all of the above - one small point is that on the "formal" one the alternative needs to be stated for clarity - i.e. plain English. While I personally disagree with "Alternatively, a complete and reliable blazon written in and [sic] informal style may be translated into an Anglo-Norman blazon." I'd accept it with a caveat in cases where "the Anglo-Norman is sufficiently well-written to be accurate in language and accurately describe the blazon" because of, respectively, one must be able to use blazon "fluently" (or close to) to do this; and I'd rather things weren't lost in translation - which isn't so much of a problem with plain English. It's late here, but I'll pick up if necessary in the morning. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humorous – discuss ]} 21:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)